Praise for Thomas Gold...

"Gold is one of America's most iconoclastic

scientists."
-Stephen Jay Gould

"Thomas Gold is one of the world's most original
minds."
-The Times, London

"Thomas Gold might have grown tired of tilting at
windmills long ago had he not destroyed so many."
-USA Today

"What if someone told you that [the oil crisis] was
all wrong and that the hydrocarbons that make up
petroleum are constantly refilling reservoirs.
Interested? Well, you should read this book....
Gold presents his evidence skillfully. You may not
agree with him, but you have to appreciate his
fresh and comprehensive approach to these major
areas of Earth science.... [This book]
demonstrates that scientific debate is alive and
well. Science is hypothesis-led and thrives on
controversy-and few people are more
controversial than Thomas Gold."
-Nature

.. Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and
professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca,
N.Y., has held for years that oil is actually a
renewable, primordial syrup continually
manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot
conditions and pressures."
-The Wall Street Journal

"Most scientists think the oil we drill for comes
from decomposed prehistoric plants. Gold
believes it has been there since the Earth's
formation, that it supports its own ecosystem far
underground and that life there preceded life on
the Earth's surface.... If Gold is right, the planet's oil
reserves are far larger than policymakers expect,
and earthquake prediction procedures require a
shakeup; moreover, astronomers hoping for
extraterrestrial contacts might want to stop
seeking life on other planets and inquire about life
in them."
-Publishers Weekly

"Gold's theories are always original, always
important, and usually right. It is my belief, based
on fifty years of observation of Gold as a friend
and colleague, that The Deep Hot Biosphere is all
of the above: original, important, controversial, and
right."
-Freeman Dyson

"Whatever the status of the upwelling gas theory,
many of Gold's ideas deserve to be taken
seriously.... The existence of [a deep hot
biosphere] could prove to be one of the
monumental discoveries of our age. This book
serves to set the record straight."
-Physics World

"My knowledge and experience of natural gas,
gained from drilling and operating many of the
world's deepest and highest pressure natural gas
wells, lends more credence to your ideas than the
conventional theories of the
biological/thermogenic origin of natural gas. Your
theory explains best what we actually encountered
in deep drilling operations."

-Robert A. Hefner III, The GHK Companies,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; From a letter to the
author

"Within the scientific community, Gold has a
reputation as a brilliantly clever renegade, having
put forward radical theories in fields ranging
from cosmology to physiology."
-The Sunday Telegraph, London
"In The Deep Hot Biosphere, [Gold] reveals
evidence supporting a subterranean biosphere
and speculates on how energy may be produced
in a region void of photosynthesis. He speculates
on the ramifications his concepts could have in
predicting earthquakes, deciphering Earth's
origins, and finding extraterrestrial life."
-Science News

"Gold's theory, as explained in The Deep Hot
Biosphere, offers new and radical ideas to our
incomplete notions of what causes earthquakes
and where we would look for life in outer space:
not on planets, but in them."
-Ithaca Times

"[The Deep Hot Biosphere] now seems to be
supported by a growing body of evidence."
-Journal of Petroleum Technology

"Gold knows experts are pooh-poohing his belief.
It happens to Gold consistently. He has
developed a reputation as someone who takes
on a long-held assumption, advances a new idea
and gets rewarded when time-a decade or two-
proves him right."
-The Juneau Empire

"Thomas Gold has questioned the very
foundations of the entrenched conventional
models.... [The Deep Hot Biosphere] is evidently
one of the most controversial of all books
published in recent history. It is bound to cause
much debate, and, if found correct, is likely to
revolutionize the face of science."
-Current Science

"[Thomas Gold] is one of the few who, despite the
attacks of mediocrities, is courageous enough to
think in a scientifically unconventional way.... [His]
courage and original ideas are rays of hope on the
horizon of science."
-Prof. Dr. Alfred Barth, The European Academy of
Sciences and Arts, Paris

Thomas Gold

With a Foreword by Freeman Dyson





















Foreword

by Freeman Dyson




he first time I met Tommy Gold was in
1946, when I served as a guinea pig in an
experiment that he was doing on the capabilities of
the human ear. Humans have a remarkable ability to
discriminate the pitch of musical sounds. We can
easily tell the difference when the frequency of a
pure tone wobbles by as little as 1 percent. How do
we do it? This was the question that Gold was
determined to answer. There were two
possible answers. Either the inner ear contains a
set of finely tuned resonators that vibrate in
response to incident sounds, or the ear does not
resonate but merely translates the incident
sounds directly into neural signals that are then
analyzed into pure tones by some unknown neural
process inside our brains. In
1946, experts in the anatomy and physiology of the
ear believed that the second answer must be
correct: that the discrimination of pitch happens in
our brains, not in our ears. They rejected the first
answer because they knew that the inner ear is a
small cavity filled with flabby flesh and water. They
could not imagine the flabby little membranes in the
ear resonating like the strings of a harp or a piano.

Gold designed his experiment to prove the
experts wrong. The experiment was simple, elegant,
and original. During World War II he had been
working for the Royal Navy on radio communications
and radar. He built his apparatus out of war
surplus Navy electronics and headphones. He fed
into the headphones a signal consisting of short
pulses of a pure tone, separated by intervals of
silence. The silent intervals were at least ten times
longer than the
period of the pure tone. The pulses were all the
same shape, but they had phases that could be
reversed independently. To reverse the phase of a
pulse means to reverse the movement of the
speaker in the headphone. The speaker in a
reversed pulse is pushing the air outward when the
speaker in an unreversed pulse is pulling the air
inward. Sometimes Gold gave all the pulses the
same phase, and sometimes he alternated the
phases so that the even pulses had one phase and
the odd pulses had the opposite phase. All I had to
do was sit with the headphones on my ears and
listen while Gold fed in signals with either constant or
alternating phases. Then I had to tell him, from the
sound, whether the phase was constant or
alternating.

When the silent interval between pulses was ten
times the period of the pure tone, it was easy to tell
the difference. I heard a noise like a mosquito, a
hum and a buzz sounding together, and the quality of
the hum changed noticeably when the phases were
changed from constant to alternating. We repeated
the trials with longer silent intervals. I could still detect
the difference, even when the silent interval was as
long as thirty periods. I was not the only guinea pig.
Several other friends of Gold listened to the signals
and reported similar results. The experiment showed
that the human ear can remember the phase of a
signal, after the signal stops, for thirty times the
period of the signal. To be able to remember phase,
the ear must contain finely tuned resonators that
continue to vibrate during the intervals of silence.
T h e result of the experiment proved that
pitch discrimination is done mainly in the ear, not
in the brain.

Besides having experimental proof that the ear
can resonate, Gold also had a theory to explain how
a finely tuned resonator can be built out of flabby and
dissipative materials. His theory was that the inner
ear contains an electrical feedback system. The
mechanical resonators are coupled to electrically
powered sensors and drivers, so that the combined
electromechanical system works like a finely tuned
amplifier. The positive feedback provided by the
electrical components counteracts the damping
produced by the flabbiness of the mechanical
components. Gold's experience as an electrical
engineer made this theory seem plausible to him,
although he could not identify the anatomical
structures in the ear that functioned as sensors and
drivers. In 1948 he published two papers, one
reporting the results of the experiment and the other
describing the theory.

Having myself participated in the experiment and
having listened to Gold explaining the theory, I never
had any doubt that he was right. But the professional
auditory physiologists were equally sure that he was
wrong. They found the theory implausible and the
experiment unconvincing. They regarded Gold as an
ignorant outsider intruding into a field where he had
no training and no credentials. For years his work on
hearing was ignored, and he moved on to other
things.

Thirty years later, a new generation of auditory
physiologists began to explore the ear with far more
sophisticated tools. They discovered that everything
Gold had said in 1948 was true. The electrical
sensors and drivers in the inner ear were identified.
They are two different kinds of hair cells, and they
function in the way Gold said they should. The
community of physiologists finally recognized the
importance of his work, forty years after it was
published.

Gold's study of the mechanism of hearing is
typical of the way he has worked throughout his life.
About once every five years, he invades a new field
of research and proposes an outrageous theory that
arouses intense opposition from the professional
experts in the field. He then works very hard to prove
the experts wrong. He does not always succeed.
Sometimes it turns out that the experts are right and
he is wrong. He is not afraid of being wrong. He was
famously wrong (or so it is widely believed) when he
promoted the theory of a steady-state universe in
which matter is continuously created to keep the
density constant as the universe expands. He may
have been wrong when he cautioned that the moon
may present a dangerous surface, being covered by
a fine, loose dust. It proved indeed to be so covered,
but fortunately no hazards were encountered by the
astronauts. When he is proved wrong, he concedes
with good humor. Science is no fun, he says, if you
are never wrong. His wrong ideas are insignificant
compared with his far more important right
ideas. Among his important right ideas was the
theory that pulsars, the regularly pulsing celestial
radio-sources discovered by radio-astronomers
in 1967, are rotating neutron stars. Unlike most of
his right ideas, his theory of pulsars was
accepted almost immediately by the experts.

Another of Gold's right ideas was rejected by the
experts even longer than his theory of hearing. This
was his theory of the 90-degree flip of the axis of
rotation of the earth. In 1955, he published a
revolutionary paper entitled "Instability of the
Earth's Axis of Rotation." He proposed that the
earth's axis might occasionally flip over through an
angle of 90 degrees within a time on the order of a
million years, so that the old north and south poles
would move to the equator, and two points of the
old equator would move to the poles. The flip
would be triggered by movements of mass that
would cause the old axis of rotation to become
unstable and the new axis of rotation to
become stable. For example, a large
accumulation of ice at the old north and south poles
might cause such an exchange of stability. Gold's
paper was ignored by the experts for forty years. The
experts at that time were focusing their attention
narrowly on the phenomenon of continental drift and
the theory of plate tectonics. Gold's theory had
nothing to do with continental drift or plate tectonics,
so it was of no interest to them. The flip predicted by
Gold would occur much more rapidly than continental
drift, and it would not change the positions of
conti nents relative to one another. The flip would
change the positions of continents only relative to the
axis of rotation.

In 1997, Joseph Kirschvink, an expert on rock
magnetism at the California Institute of Technology,
published a paper presenting evidence that a 90-
degree flip of the rotation axis actually occurred
d ur i ng a geologically short time in the early
Cambrian era. This discovery is of great importance
for the history of life, because the time of the flip
appears to coincide with the time of the "Cambrian
Explosion," the brief period when all the major
varieties of higher organisms suddenly appear in the
fossil record. It is possible that the flip of the rotation
axi s caused profound environmental changes in the
oceans and triggered the rapid evolution of new life
forms. Kirschvink gives Gold credit for suggesting
the theory that makes sense of his observations. If
the theory had not been ignored for forty years, the
evidence that confirms it might have been collected
sooner.

Gold's most controversial idea is the non-
biological origin of natural gas and oil. He maintains
that natural gas and oil come from reservoirs deep in
the earth and are relics of the material out of
which the earth condensed. The biological
molecules found in oil show that the oil is
contaminated by living creatures, not that the oil
was produced by living creatures. This theory, like
his theories of hearing and of polar flip,
contradicts the entrenched dogma of the experts.
Once again, Gold is regarded as an intruder
ignorant of the field he is invading. In fact, Gold is
an intruder, but he is not ignorant. He knows the
details of the geology and chemistry of natural gas
and oil. His arguments supporting his theory are
based on a wealth of factual information. Perhaps it
will once again take us forty years to decide whether
the theory is right. Whether the theory of non-
biological origin is ultimately found to be right or
wrong, collecting evidence to test it will add greatly
to our knowledge of the earth and its history.

Finally, the most recent of Gold's revolutionary
proposals, the theory of the deep hot biosphere, is
the subject of this book. The theory says that the
entire crust of the earth, down to a depth of several
m i l e s , is populated with living creatures. The
creatures that we see living on the surface are only a
small part of the biosphere. The greater and more
ancient part of the biosphere is deep and hot. The
theory is supported by a considerable mass of
evidence. I do not need to summarize this evidence
here, because it is clearly presented in the pages
that follow. I prefer to let Gold speak for himself. The
purpose of my remarks is only to explain how the
theory of the deep hot biosphere fits into the general
pattern of Gold's life and work.

Gold's theories are always original, always
important, usually controversial-and usually right. It is
my belief, based on fifty years of observation of
Gold as a friend and colleague, that the
deep hot biosphere is all of the above:
original, important, controversial-and right.
Prefai




n June 1997 I was asked by NASA to give
t h e annual lecture at the Goddard Space Flight
Center in Maryland. My contribution to the deep hot
biosphere theory and its implications for
extraterrestrial life had won me the invitation. I was
flattered, of course, but at the same time chagrined
by the topic I was asked to address: life in extreme
environments. I had little interest in talking about the
surface biosphere on earth, and yet, if I were to take
the topic literally, this is precisely what I was being
asked to do. The life in extreme environments is our
own surface life.

If there is one idea that I hope you will retain long
after you finish reading this book, it is this: It is we
who live in the extreme environments. And if there is
one desire I hope to stimulate in you, it is a curiosity
to learn more about the first and most truly terrestrial
beings-all of whom live far beneath our feet, in what I
have come to call the deep hot biosphere.

Alas, I can only begin to satisfy this curiosity
here, for at this moment in our biological and
cosmic understanding, there are still more
questions than answers. But that is exactly
what makes investigating the deep hot biosphere
so exciting.

Thomas Gold
Ithaca, New
York December
1998


Fo revVr rd I

Freeman Dyson

Preface xi

(:i ipter t Our (I"11-dell of 1111oll

The Narrow Window for Surface Life 2
Chemical Energy for Subsurface Life 4
A Preview of This Book 7
(:11aI)t(~r., I,if't, at IIre I~) r(h rs 11
Energy Deep in the Earth 13
The Ecology of Deep-Ocean Vent Life 19
Other Borderland Ecologies 23
Deep Is Desirable 27
Beneath the Borderlands 30

r:r ,me 1)~~~I-F trIIi (,,is i,it r. 37

The Origin of Petroleum: Two Conflicting Theories
38
Five Assumptions Underlying the Deep-Earth Gas
Theory 43

01iriter1 Evidence 1'6r I>fv(-F"irtIi (iaS 57

Petroleum Reservoirs That Refill 59
Clues in the Carbonate Record 61
The Association of Helium with Hydrocarbons 72

(;har0vr:) H;s(IV'in$2, th(' P('tr(1etnrl Par'alllx
79

The Deep Hot Biosphere Solution 80
Biological Molecules in Non-Biological Petroleum 82
The Upwelling Theory of Coal Formation 86
Evidence for the Upwelling Theory 94
An Exemption for Peat 100

chapter(; Th ' SiI.jan Fxt(Tinlent 105

Drilling in Swedish Granite 107
Magnetite and Microbial Geology 114
(:banter Fxten(Iinw; theihI1mry 125
The Origin of Diamonds 127
A New Explanation for Concentrated Metal Deposits
131

I~hatikr`~ IIP( hInking I~'Alrth(tuak(s 141

Mud Volcanoes 142
A Challenge to Earthquake Theory 143
Eyewitness Accounts 145
Earthquake Spots and Earth Mounds 156
Upwelling Deep Gas as the Cause of Earthquakes
159

t;har)tc t) TIw Ori ;in of Life 165

The Habitability of Surface and Subsurface Realms
166
The Enhanced Probability for Life's Origin 170
Darwin's Dilemma 176
(;banter III hal Next' 185
Microbial Investigations 188
Prospects for Extraterrestrial Surface Life 193
Deepening the Search for Extraterrestrial Life 201
Independent Beginnings or Panspermia? 205

Afl('rvV(r(l to IIi Iaterlklck F A111011 209

Notes 217

Ackn(wl(il ;rnents 235

I tl(I('x 237






o scientific subject holds more surprises
for us than biology. Foremost is the surprise that life
exists at all. How could life have started? Did one
extraordinary chance occurrence in the universe
assemble the first primitive living organism, and did
everything else follow from that?

What chemical and physical circumstances were
needed for such an unlikely event to occur? Did our
earth offer the only nurturing conditions? Or (in what
has come to be known as the "panspermia"
hypothesis) did life arise somewhere else,
spreading through astronomical space to take root
in any fertile spot it encountered? Or is life not
unlikely after all? Perhaps life is an inevitable
consequence of physical laws and is arising
spontaneously in millions of places.

Whatever the answers to these questions, we do
know that life on the surface of the earth spans a
huge variety of forms. These forms range from
microbes to whales, giant fungi, and enormous
trees. They include unfathomable numbers of
insects. If we add to our reckoning the life forms that
have died out, then the diversity expands to include
dinosaurs, trilobites, and vastly more.

All this living variety has much in common. The
construction of all known organisms involves
complex forms of protein molecules. Those, in turn,
are built up from a set of building blocks called
amino acids, common to all known forms of life. The
chemical configuration of some of these amino
acids could occur in two forms, one of which is the
mirror image of the other. Yet we find that all the
huge variety of life uses only one kind of each
such pair of molecules. There thus appears to be a
strong connecting thread running through all the
life forms we know.

No less important than the common constituents
of life are the common conditions under which all
known life forms can develop and survive. These
conditions include a requirement for water in the
li qui d state, a limited range of temperature, and
sources of energy that are delivered in (or can be
converted into) chemical form. We tend to assume
that these conditions are best-and perhaps ideally-
provi ded on the surface of our own planet. And we
conclude, sadly perhaps, that these conditions are
almost certainly not present anywhere else in the
solar system. But are these assumptions valid?
The Narrow Window for Surface Life



he universe is a harsh and severe place, a
realm of extremes. Most of the universe is virtually
empty and very cold-to be precise, 2.7 Kelvin or -
270.5 Celsius, which is just 2.7C above absolute
zero. This vast cold is punctuated by points of
intense heat and lightthe stars-whose surface
temperatures reach millions of degrees.

Stars do not maintain their brilliance forever, and it
is from them that the constituents of life come. Stars
that have three or more times the mass of the sun
will expire in a frenzy of violence, a supernova
explosion that may briefly flare with the brightness of
a hundred billion stars. The explosion scatters the
stellar materials into space, making the cold clouds
out of which new stars form. The different atomic
nuclei created in the core of the star and during its
explosion supply materials from which planets can
form. The same stellar materials provide the
elements from which we and all other living creatures
known to us are constructed.

Life is thus built up from a variety of atoms forged
in nuclear furnaces deep inside giant stars. More
precisely, life is constructed from molecules,
clumpings of atoms that are in close enough contact
and cool enough for a weak attractive force to hold
them together. The interiors of stars are suitable for
element formation, but their heat is too intense for
the formation of complex molecules.

Most places in the universe do not allow the
chemical action that is conducive to life. The stars
are too hot, and most other places are so cold that
substances are in the form of a solid or a very low-
density gas, whose chemical activity is exceedingly
slow. But we do see some regions in the cosmos in
which many different types of molecules have been
built up. These are the large gas clouds in interstellar
spaces, warmed by stars that are in or near
them. Radio techniques have made it possible to
identify many different molecules there. Water
is one common component of the gas, as
are hydrocarbons-combinations of hydrogen
and carbon. It is from the materials of such clouds
that o ur and other star systems are believed to
have formed.

For life forms to arise and to persist, molecules
must be awash in a liquid or a gas, so that gentle
contacts among molecules can build up other
molecules and generate a brew of the kind of
complexity we find in biological materials. In all of the
expressions of life known to us, this mobility is
provided by liquid water. Given the ferocious and
unfriendly conditions of the universe-with points of
intense heat and vast expanses of severe cold-one
would think it rare indeed for any place to hold
surface temperatures in the range that would render
water a liquid. Surface temperatures depend not
only on the solar irradiation intercepted by the planet,
and thus on its distance from the sun and on the
sun's size and surface temperature, but also on the
mass and composition of the planet's atmosphere.

It is the mass and composition of the atmosphere
that crucially determines atmospheric pressure.
Without a gas pressure, there is no such thing as
liquid water. In the absence of substantial
atmosphere, water is either a solid or a vapor. All in
all, a planet that offers liquid water on its surface is a
rare occurrence. Rarer still would be the subset of
such places that have given rise to the intricate
designs that we call "life."

Could there be, in this fierce universe, locations
where perhaps a little brook runs down a hillside,
with trees gently swaying in the wind, and with
creatures sitting by the side, enjoying the view? It
seems a far-fetched fantasy in this forbidding
universe. And yet we know one such place: our little
earth.

How was our planet able to bring forth the
enormous abundance of surface life that we see
around us? None of the other planets and none of
their moons have anything comparable. Indeed,
because the surfaces of all other bodies in our
planetary system offer essentially no possibility for
the existence of liquid water, it is very unlikely that
surface life exists anywhere in our solar system
other than on the earth. There may be only one
Garden of Eden here for large life forms such as
ourselves. But living beings small enough to
populate tiny pore spaces may well exist within
several-and perhaps many-other planetary bodies.
Chemical Energy for Subsurface Life



he sun provides two distinct actions.
First, it is the source of heat that puts the
surface temperature of the earth into a range
suitable for the complex chemical reactions of
molecules, and thus for life. But ambient heat
cannot be a source of energy, and the warmth of
our surface surroundings could not constitute an
energy source for surface life. Only a heat flow
from a hotter body to a cooler one can be
converted into other forms of energy. We have
such an energy flow from the hot surface of the sun
to the cooler earth-the second action that the sun
provides-and energy is taken from this flow and
converted into chemical energy in the process of
photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis is performed today largely by
plants and algae, using sunlight to dissociate
water molecules (H20) and atmospheric carbon
dioxide (CO2), then reconfiguring the atoms
to yield carbohydrates such as C6H12061 which
can than be oxidized ("burned") as needed,
back into H2O and CO2, to yield metabolic
energy. This process then serves as the principal
energy source for all surface life. A planetary
surface that does not possess photosynthetic life
would be hostile to any of the surface life forms we
know. Below the surface the temperature may be
similar to that at the surface; but over small
dimensions-like the size of living forms there-
only quite insignificant energy flow occurs.
Therefore, no energy source can exist beneath
the earth's surface.

When we consider life's beginning, however, we
realize that a puzzle lurks in this account of energy
transformation. Photosynthesis is an exceedingly
complex process. The microorganisms that
developed it must have already possessed intricate
chemical processing systems before they acquired
this more advanced ability. The energy source that
these initial microorganisms drew on must have
been chemical to begin with. The chemical energy
available before the advent of photosynthesis
could not have been created by solar energy or
by life. It must have been a free gift of the cosmos.

Where exactly did such chemical energy come
from? I propose that the original source of energy for
earthly life was derived not from photosynthesis but
from the oxidation of hydrocarbons that were already
present, just as they are also present on many other
planetary bodies and in the original materials that
formed the solar system. Spanning the range from
the light gas methane to the heaviest petroleum,
hydrocarbons are present in the earth today in large
amounts and to great depths-I believe much larger
and deeper than is typically estimated. This view of
the genesis of hydrocarbons I have called the
deep- earth gas theory.'

I think we have good evidence now that a
very significant realm of life has existed, and still
exists, well below the surface biosphere that is
home to humans. This subsurface realm and its
inhabitants constitute what I call the deep hot
biosphere 2-deep because it may extend down
to a depth of ten kilometers or more below the
surface of the earth, a n d hot because, as a
result of the natural temperature gradient of the
earth, temperatures in much of that realm
approach and even exceed
100C.

The conventional notion is that hydrocarbons
present within the earth's upper crust are derived
strictly from plant and animal debris transformed by
geological processes-and thus that hydrocarbons
could not possibly have played a role in the origin of
life. But we shall have reason to question this, along
with many other assumptions. And as we shall see in
Chapter 2, an abundance of new discoveries have
confirmed life's presence in this crustal realm and
under conditions seldom before thought tolerable to
any form of life.

Chemical energy is released in chemical
reactions. The substances we call fuels in our
surface realm are really only one component of the
energy-producing reactions. The other component,
oxygen, is so abundant around us that we tend to
forget about it. Hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and carbon
are fuels for us only because the other component
needed for the reaction that produces energy is
readily available from the vast store of oxygen
present in our atmosphere and dissolved in
seawater as Oz. This oxygen is largely, but not
entirely, created as a residue substance in the
process of photosynthesis. It, rather than the
petroleum or the coal, represents the fossil fuel left
over from bygone vegetation.

Before photosynthesis was devised by life-and
even now at depths to which atmospheric oxygen
cannot penetrate-any hydrocarbonusing life must
have depended on other sources of oxygen. Oxygen
i s the second most abundant element (after silicon)
in the crust of the earth. The rocks therefore have
plenty of oxygen in them, but most of it is too tightly
bound to be useful. Clearly, sources of oxygen that
requi re more energy to free the oxygen from its
attachment in the rocks than the energy gained by
oxidizing hydrocarbons with it cannot provide
microbes with an energy supply.

Subsurface life must therefore depend on sources
of oxygen in which these vital atoms are only weakly
bound with other elements. The largest sources of
weakly bound oxygen in the earth's crust are certain
kinds of iron oxides and sulfates (oxidized sulfur
compounds). When oxygen is extracted from iron
oxides such as ferric iron, that process leaves
behind iron in a lower oxidation state in which it is
magnetic; examples include the minerals magnetite
and greigite. When oxygen is taken from sulfates,
what is left behind may be pure sulfur or sulfides
such as hydrogen sulfide and iron sulfide. The
existence of such by-products of metabolic activity in
the subsurface realm helps us identify the
biochemical processes that have occurred. These
by-products also provide a sense of the scale and
reach of the deep hot biosphere.

It is crucial to the theory of subsurface life that the
ultimate source of up-welling hydrocarbons resides
very much deeper than the lowermost reach of
subsurface life. The deep hot biosphere may be
deep, but it must not be excessively deep. Why is
this so? The exponential growth rates of microbes
(as of all forms of life) mean that wherever life
resides, the source of energy that supports it must
arrive in a metered flow. If the earliest forms of
subsurface life had not been checked by limits on
their food supply, the increase in their numbers
would have very rapidly consumed the entire lot in an
instant of geological time, allowing no gradual
evolution to take place.

Hence energy that can be used by life must be
available, but it must not be available all at once. The
metered energy flow for the surface biosphere is
provided by a sun that takes billions of years to
consume its own finite stores of fuels. The chemical
energy (such as sugars) forged by photosynthesizing
life forms here on the earth is thus created through
time in a metered way and only in areas that have
li q ui d water-not in the driest deserts or in the
icefields of polar or high mountain regions. The
transformation from solar to chemical energy now
takes place at a rate sufficient to feed all the surface
life we see. But no matter how greedy life may be,
organisms simply cannot make the sun radiate
energy any faster. It is energy that supports life, but
only a metered flow of energy sustains life over a
long period of time.

Understanding the importance to life of a metered
supply of energy is crucial to delimiting the
possibilities for life's origins. The oftendiscussed
warm little pond that contained nutrients forged with
g r e a t difficulty by surface processes is not a
candidate environment, in my opinion, for the
transition from non-life to life. Such an environment
would yield a limited amount of chemical supplies
and energy, not a long-term and continuous metered
supply. What is needed, rather, is an environment
that can supply chemical energy in a metered flow
over tens or hundreds of millions of years, during
which time incomprehensibly large numbers of
molecular experiments might take place. lies even
deeper. I will argue that photosynthesis developed in
offshoots of subterranean life that had progressed
toward the surface and then evolved a way to use
photons to supply even more chemical energy. When
surface conditions became favorable to life
(with regard to temperature, the presence of liquid
water, the filtering of harsh components of solar
radiation, and the termination of devastating asteroid
impacts), a huge amount of surface life was able to
spring up.
A Preview of This Book



n the remaining chapters, I shall set forth the
theory that a fully functioning and robust biosphere,
feeding on hydrocarbons, exists at depth within the
earth and that a primordial source of hydrocarbons

In retrospect, it is not hard to understand why the
scientific community has typically sought only surface
life in the heavens. Scientists have been hindered by
a sort of "surface chauvinism." And because earth
scientists did not recognize the presence of
chemical energy beneath their feet, astronomers and
planetary scientists could not build a subsurface
component into their quests for extraterrestrial life.
Unfortunately, this misunderstanding lingers. The
idea that hydrocarbons on earth are the chemical
remains of surface life that has long been buried and
pressurecooked into petroleum and natural gas has
been exceedingly difficult to unseat. I have been
trying to do so since 1977, and I discovered
along t h e way that some pioneering Russian
scientists were my forebears.3 The reason for this
continuing confusion in understanding how
hydrocarbons came into being is a story in itself;
I shall take it up in Chapter 3.

As long as Western scientists continue to assume
a biological origin for all terrestrial hydrocarbons, the
major sources of the earth's chemical energy will not
be recognized. And as long as this substantial food
supply goes unrecognized, the prospect that a large
subterranean biosphere may indeed exist, and
exist down to great depth, will likewise fail to
attract scientific attention. Thus the particular
importance of Chapter 3, in which I will examine the
considerations that favor the deep-earth gas theory.

Surface evidence for that theory follows in Chapter
4. Most important, I introduce a set of observations
that cannot be explained at all by a sedimentary
origin of hydrocarbons-the strong association of
hydrocarbons with a gas that can have no chemical
interactions either with plant materials or with
hydrocarbons: the inert element helium. How can
petroleum have gathered up clearly biological
molecules but also an inert gas that is normally
sparsely distributed in the rocks? I call this
association the "petroleum paradox." Its resolution
(in Chapter 5) suggests that multitudes of microbial
life must exist in the pore spaces of the rocks. In my
view, hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by
geology (as the traditional view would hold) but
rather geology reworked by biology. In other
words, hydrocarbons are primordial, but as they
upwell into earth's outer crust, microbial life
invades.
Chapter 6 presents the striking results of a
large- scale drilling project that I initiated in Sweden
to test the deep-earth gas theory and also to look
for deep microbial life. In Chapters 7 and 8, I
undertake to show how the deep-earth gas theory
can account for concentrated deposits of certain
metal ores in the crust and also for important
features of earthquakes.

In Chapters 9 and 10 I use the deep-earth gas and
deep hot biosphere theories to offer new
speculations on what are perhaps the two most
profound mysteries of the biological sciences: the
origin of earth life and the prospects for
extraterrestrial life. As background, I begin with a
comparison of the two biospheres. In what major
ways might the surface biosphere and the deep
biosphere differ, beyond the simple fact that one
draws on chemical energy and the other on solar? I
then revisit the question of life's origin, explaining
why I believe that surface life is the descendant of an
original form of life that began at depth, rather than
the other way around.

If this sequence from depth to surface best
explains the origin and expansion of terrestrial life,
then subsurface life on many other planetary bodies
would seem very probable. There are many bodies
in the solar system whose internal conditions are
thought to be similar to those of our earth but
whose surfaces do not offer the extraordinary
advantages for life that ours has. It would be
unlikely indeed for subsurface life to develop just in
the one unique body that could support surface life
as well. This reasoning led me in 1992 to make the
tentative prediction that our own solar system
harbors not one but ten deep hot biospheres.4

We surface creatures may well be alone in the
solar system, but the denizens of the terrestrial deep
seem likely to have many-possibly independently
evolved-peers. Only when we recognize the
existence of a thriving subterranean biosphere within
our own planet will we learn the right techniques to
begin the search for extraterrestrial life in other
planetary bodies. Some such techniques and
further suggesti ons for future research will be
presented in Chapter 10.

Our journey will begin in the next chapter with a
look at the borderland regions between the two
biospheres. Along hydrothermal vents and petroleum
seeps of the ocean, and in hot springs and methane-
rich caves on land, we encounter some extraordinary
ambassadors from the deep hot biosphere. Here we
can also begin to comprehend why deep may, in
fact, be desirable for life.







n February and March of 1977, the small
deep-sea-diving submarine Alvin descended to a
depth of 2.6 kilometers along the East Pacific
Rise. This region, northeast of the Galapagos
Islands, was known to be a center of sea floor
spreading. A research ship had drawn a camera
over the area the previous year, confirming the
existence of a series of cracks in the ocean floor
that appeared to be volcanically active. But the
occupants of Alvin saw much more.

Far below the deepest possibility for
photosynthetic life, Alvin's searchlight revealed a
patch of ocean bottom teeming with life, in sharp
contrast with the surrounding barrens. This patch
was covered with dense communities of sea
animals-some exceptionally large for their kind.
Anchored to the rocks, these creatures thrived in the
ri ch borderland where hot fluids from the earth met
the marine cold. New to science were species of
lemon-yellow mussels and white-shelled clams that
approached a third of a meter in length. Most striking
of all were the tube worms, which lurk inside vertical
white stalks of their own making, bright red gills
protruding from the top. Like the tube worms of
shallow waters, these denizens of the deep live
c lus te re d together in communities, with tubes
oriented outward resembling bristles on a brush. But
unlike their more familiar kin, the tube worms of the
deep are giants, reaching lengths in excess of two
meters.

Further investigations soon revealed that this
strange and isolated community of life was by no
means unique. Populations of the same organisms
were discovered at other points along that ocean rift,
a t hydrothermally active vents elsewhere in the
Pacific, and in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans too.
This was clearly a global phenomenon.
These unsuspected oases represent an entirely new
habitat for life. Where did these creatures come
from? What sources of energy and nutrients could
support such astonishing fecundity and in
such a patchwork distribution?

Through the windows of Alvin, the 1977 discovery
crew witnessed not only strange life forms but also
streams of milky fluids and black "smoke" emerging
from vents in the sea floor. These streams of
hydrothermal fluids, heated and enriched in
gases and minerals, are now known to be the
sources of chemical energy at the base of the vent
community's food chain. Two decades later,
however, we have only begun to understand how it
all works.

Because we are surface creatures, we readily
adopt the outlook that surface life is the only possible
kind. We marvel at the exotic life along the
deep- ocean vents. We assume, of course, that
the vents were originally colonized by
emigrants from a surface ecosystem-
pioneers in evolving the adaptations necessary
to subsist on energy drawn f r o m chemical
sources rather than bundled in photons, the
units of energy in which light is delivered. This
top-down scenario is reasonable for the large
animals. Tube worms and clams surely did migrate
down from shallow waters. But no animal of any
kind can serve as the base of a food chain. All
animals depend on chemical energy stored in the
bodies of organisms they consume. Something,
therefore, must have already been growing around
the ocean vents when the worms and clams arrived.
In my view, the base of the food chain in the deep
ocean vents is more likely to have emerged from
below than to have descended from above. The
microbes (bacteria and archaea) that today support
t h e whole complex enterprise are offspring of
microbial communities that lived and still live within
the earth's crust. Whereas the large life forms can
exist only where there is considerable space for
them, the micro bial life that feeds them occurs in
units small enough to inhabit minute cracks in the
rocks of the sea floor and elsewhere throughout the
earth's upper crust. The total volume of rock that is
accessible to such microbes is enormous; as we
shall see in Chapter 5, the microbial content of the
earth's upper crust may well exceed in mass and
volume all surface life. Indeed, microbes from the
realm that I call the deep hot biosphere probably
invaded this borderland between the two
worldsbetween the deep biosphere and the surface
biosphere-long before photosynthesis evolved on
the surface. In fact, the chemical differences
between the two worlds may have been slight prior
to the advent of photosynthesis, because it was
photosynthesis that transformed the earth's
surface into a zone pervaded by free oxygen-
molecules of OZ.
Energy Deep in the Earth



hotosynthesis is an exceedingly
complex process for turning the energy of light into
chemical energy. But why does the route that energy
takes have to include chemical forms? Why
cannot the sunlight be made to drive directly
all the processes that the organism requires?
There are some compelling reasons. First, the
energy required to run cellular metabolisms must
be available in increments no more than a tenth
as powerful as that supplied by even a single solar
photon. Expecting a cell to use a photon directly
to synthesize a sugar would be more ludicrous
than expecting a baseball player to field bullets from
a machine gun. Rather, life has devised an
extremely sophisticated apparatus to perform the
initial task of catching the bullets.

Second, a photon has no patience. Make use of it
now or lose it forever. Sunlight cannot be captured in
a jar and stored on a shelf. But its energy can be
used to set up molecules such as sugars, that will
d e l i ve r energy on combining with atmospheric
oxygen. Our breathing demonstrates this: we take in
such "reduced" (unoxidized) carbon compounds in
our food and we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon
dioxide. This describes the overall metabolic activity,
but in fact there are various stages in between, all
dependent on the energy provided by the oxidation
of the reduced carbon compounds we eat, eventually
to C02- Sugars or other intermediate molecules can
be stored on the cellular shelf, and the rate of
"combustion" can be controlled. Chemical energy
thus carries the advantage of availability, offering an
adjusted amount where and when it is needed.

Because photosynthesis is such a complex
process, and because the energy derived from
photons must be converted into chemical energy
before the cell can make use of it, researchers who
probe the possible origins of earthly life have
become convinced that the first living cells tapped
not sunlight but chemical energy present in the
environment. Where this chemical energy came from
and what it consisted of remain hotly debated
issues, but the widespread assumption is that either
this primordial energy source has long since been
used up or the conditions that produced it billions of
years ago no longer prevail. I shall return to this
question in later chapters. For now it is important to
remember only that it would be far more difficult to
design a living cell that could construct chemical
energy from photons than it would be to design a
living cell that scavenged chemical energy from its
surroundings.

The cells that perform this complex function of
photosynthesis must have access to liquid water, as
already noted, and they must have access to carbon
and nitrogen for the fabrication of proteins, the
principal building blocks for their chemical
machinery. The solar energy is used to "reduce"
(unoxidize) compounds that will serve to provide
energy as they are later oxidized again. Oxygen
must therefore also be available, as must catalysts
(enzymes) that initiate and control the reaction rates
and thereby the power output.

Life as we know it depends fundamentally on the
presence of carbon; earth life is sometimes referred
to as "carbon-based life," to distinguish it from the
theoretically possible (but unknown) "silicon-based
life." Carbon atoms constitute the skeletal structure
of all proteins and of all genetic materials of all the
life forms we know. In the surface biosphere,
carbon is provided by carbon dioxide, which is
present in small proportion in the atmosphere.
Each of the several varieties of photosynthesis
that life has evolved begins with carbon dioxide,
from which the complex molecules of life are
then forged. In the most common form of
photosynthesis, energetic photons from the sun
are employed to dissociate
water and thus to gain access to atoms of hydrogen.
The hydrogen is next used to "reduce" (take oxygen
away from) the molecule of carbon dioxide. This
makes available unoxidized carbon, which can then
be used for construction materials and for a variety
of functional materials such as proteins. Unoxidized
carbon can also be used to construct the
various sugar-like substances
(saccharides and polysaccharides) that provide
storable sources of chemical energy.

When the photosynthetic organism dies, and
when the other organisms that have benefitted
from its products die, microbial decay will
return to the atmosphere all the materials that
have been taken out. Depending on the type of
microbe undertaking the decomposition, the carbon
will be returned to the atmosphere either as carbon
dioxide or as methane (CH4). Because the
atmosphere is rich in oxygen, a n y methane
released into it will spontaneously transform into
carbon dioxide and water on a time scale of
about ten years. So far as the energy balance
is concerned, no chemical energy derived from the
earth has been used up. Carbon dioxide returns
as carbon dioxide, and water returns as water.

It may thus seem that carbon cycles through the
surface biosphere in a complete and closed manner.
If the atmosphere and the exposed rocks initially
possess the volumes of raw materials required by
life, the process should go on for as long as the sun
shines and temperatures allow water to remain in a
liquid state. But as we will see in Chapter 4, the path
that carbon follows through the cycle of
photosynthesis and oxidation is far from a
closed loop. Several times as much carbon as is
taken up by living materials is constantly extracted
from the atmosphere and taken out of circulation,
as long- lived or permanent carbonate rock.
The surface biosphere must therefore have been
kept alive by an ongoing and large supply of
carbon in the form of either methane or CO2 (or,
as some observations
would indicate, by a mix of the two). CO2 will be the
final addition to the atmosphere in either case.

In the surface biosphere, all the energy driving
biochemical transformations ultimately comes from
sunlight. Life in the deep hot bio sphere does not
have access to sunlight, so the source of energy
could not work in the same way. But even there,
carbon is the basic building block of life. What is the
source of this carbon in the subsurface realm?

The notion, derived from surface biology, that
CO2 is the standard carbon supply for all life has
been applied by some investigators to the deep life
also. While the ocean water contains plenty of C021
it does not have any energy source to reduce this.
The reduced carbon that trickles down from the
surface layers would be quite inadequate. No energy
can be derived from a process that both starts and
ends with oxidized carbon. If unoxidized carbon
were available at the outset, in the form of
hydrocarbon molecules migrating upward, then
these molecules would be the logical candidate for
a carbon supply that would also yield an energy-
producing sequence, ending up with CO2.

The hot ocean vents are not themselves provinces
of the deep hot biosphere; they are borderlands
between two worlds, between surface and
subsurface. Nevertheless, their food chains are
driven by processes so different from that of the
surface realm that they are a good place to begin
our explorations of deep hot biosphere energy. The
amounts of carbon that sink down from ocean
surface life are quite inadequate to supply the
exceptionally fertile ocean vent biology. The volcanic
ro c k s of the sea floor contain only a very small
fraction of carbon-about 200 parts per million (ppm).
To extract carbon from this source would be difficult
and very energy-consuming. There is, however, a
much larger carbon source in all these communities:
hydrocarbons. Methane (CH4) is generally the most
abundant, but the heavier members of the series,
such as ethane (CZH6) and all the way up to oils
constituted of twenty to thirty carbon atoms, are also
found along the same fault lines, though in regions
where less volcanic heat is in evidence. As the next
two chapters will show, these hydrocarbon fluids
show many features that suggest they have come up
from much deeper regions.

The chemical energy supply, we might then
suspect, is driven by the oxidation of these
hydrocarbons. Starting out with hydrocarbons
avoids the first and energetically most demanding
step in the surface energy cycle. The chemical
energy that is made available at the ocean vents is
very similar to that made available by burning
natural gas (which is largely methane) and turning it
into water and carbon dioxide. There is one snag,
however. When methane is burned in a furnace,
there is an unlimited amount of oxygen from the
atmosphere available all the time. In the ocean
vents, a borderland between the surface a n d the
deep biospheres, there may be some
atmospheric oxygen available that was carried down
in solution in the cold ocean water. If this were
sufficient for converting all the methane supplied
from the vents into carbon dioxide and water, then
this borderland province would be dependent on
surface biological processes, and it would not be an
outpost of what I suggest is an independent realm of
life stretching down into the rocks below. It seems
doubtful that the prolific life at these concentrated
locations on the ocean floor could receive enough
waterborne atmospheric oxygen, but a firm answer
is not yet known. However, this issue is not of
central importance. We now know of many cases
where we can probe so far down into the deep
biosphere that atmospheric oxygen has absolutely
no access, and we observe generally similar
metabolic processes taking place there. Where
does the necessary oxygen come from?

There is plenty of oxygen bound in the rocks, as
noted earlier, but most of it is so strongly bound that
more energy would be required to remove it
than
could be derived by using it subsequently to oxidize
hydrocarbons. There are just two common
substances in which oxygen atoms are bound
loosely enough that more energy would be obtained
from using oxygen so acquired than is spent in
acquiring it. These two common substances are
highly oxidized iron (Fe2O3 and associated
compounds) and oxidized sulfur (such as SO2 and
HZSO4 in compounds that are called sulfates). If
microbes at or beneath the ocean vents secure their
oxygen needs from ferric iron oxides, what will
remain is a less oxidized form of iron-magnetite or
greigite. Microbial action leaves a clear fingerprint
behind: The crystals of these products are much
smaller than those of the same substances that have
frozen out in the cooling of rocks from liquid to solid
form.

The water of the oceans includes the second
source of lightly bound oxygen, sulfate, in great
quantities. Sulfate (SO4) is the second most
abundant ion of negative charge in seawater. The
amount of oxygen that could be derived from marine
sulfate ions may well exceed the convected
atmospheric oxygen available at the ocean vents. If
oxygen is, in fact, primarily available near the vents
in the form of sulfate, then the microbes that make
use of the hydrocarbons will be in an ideal situation:
The chemical transformations for extracting the
chemical energy from upwelling hydrocarbons will
not run by themselves, because an initial energy
supply is required for the first step of freeing oxygen
atoms from sulfate. The microbes will be amply
compensated for this energy-demanding step,
however, when the second step is taken.

The task of brokering such transactions is left to
the world of microbes. Here, it is important to
remember that a chemical fuel is useless to life if it
combusts spontaneously. Dinner would do you no
good if the food burst into flames on your plate. For a
substance to qualify as "food," it must become
oxidized only with the help of a catalyst created and
deployed by life. This is a fundamental requirement
both for the organisms at the base of the food
chains of the surface and deep biospheres and
also for all organisms that stand later in line.

The removal of oxygen from sulfates at the ocean
vents would produce either pure (elemental) sulfur or
sulfides, which are unoxidized sulfur compounds.
The large quantities of metal sulfides that are found
heaped up at the edges of ocean vents suggests
that such biologically facilitated transformations are
indeed taking place.

A further requirement for the construction of
organisms-be they inhabitants of the surface
biosphere or the subsurface biosphere-is a supply of
various metals required in the protein molecules
known as enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.
Also required for biological construction or chemical
processing are some reactive molecules that
contain elements such as sulfur, phosphorus, and
chlorine. The required quantities of these are
small enough that the upper crust of the earth can
usually supply them. The deep biosphere and
the land portions of the surface biosphere are
thus adequately nourished. But the surface waters
of the open oceans may be impoverished,
particularly with respect to phosphorus and iron.

In summary, there are important differences and
important similarities between the two biospheres.
The surface biosphere runs on solar energy
converted into chemical energy; the deep biosphere
begins with chemical energy freely supplied from the
depths of the earth. Both biospheres rely on
unoxidized carbon as the building block of life, but
surface life extracts it initially, with the help of
sunlight, from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
whereas deep life extracts it from the same
substances used as the energy source:
hydrocarbons. Oxygen is a requirement in both
realms, since chemical energy is provided only in the
process of oxidation. For surface creatures, oxygen
is available largely in the form of pure, molecular
oxygen. Inhabitants of the subsurface must work
harder to gain their supply, extracting oxygen
atoms that are loosely bound in iron oxides and
sulfates.
The Ecology of Deep-Ocean Vent Life



ecause we are surface creatures, we are
inclined to regard an ecosystem based on chemical
energy rather than photosynthetic energy as a
strange, if wonderful, adaptation of life. We marvel
a t the ecology of the deep ocean vents as a deft
adjustment of surface life to an inhospitable realm.
The evidence argues otherwise. Microbes and
even animals are thriving at these vents; growth
rates are thought to exceed those in even the most
productive surface realms. If the theory of the
deep hot biosphere is correct, we would
infer that the mi cro b i a l pioneers invaded from
below. Many viewpoints would have to be
changed as a consequence.

The communities of life at the deep ocean vents
differ from other marine ecosystems not so much in
their garish macrofauna but in their unseen
microbes-the bacteria and archaea at the base of
the food web. Two decades of studies have
revealed that these microbes feed on molecules
gushing from the vents: hydrogen (H2), hydrogen
sulfide (1-12S), and methane (CH4), each of which
can supply energy only if oxygen is available.' No
known animal can feed on any of these chemicals
directly, but animals can feed on microbes that do.
What is particularly remarkable about the deep-
ocean vent communities is that many of the
macrofauna seem to be dependent on symbiotic
partnerships with the microbes.

Clams and mussels have entered into symbiotic
partnerships with microbes bound in their gill
tissues. The giant tube worm species, however, has
taken partnership to a new dimension. Its interior
guests are so skilled in producing food for
themselves and their host that coevolution has
atrophied the worm's digestive system and deprived
it of a mouth. Utterly dependent now on the excess
production of its symbionts, the tube worm has
evolved a large and specialized organ deep
inside its body for the microbes to inhabit.
The worm supplies its microbes with the materials
they need by employing feathery red gills to filter
useful molecules out of seawater. Then it volunteers
its own circulatory system to deliver what the gills
have gathered.

The greatest challenge to organisms along
hydrothermal vents is posed by the risk of being
swept out of range of the vent and thereby losing the
chemical supplies and the temperature range they
requi re. The bivalves and tube worms solve the
problem by anchoring themselves in place.
Crabs and shrimps and snails that live among
the fixed organisms can, of course, creep and
clutch as needed. The microbes that constitute
the primary step in the food chain have found ways
to hold their place, too. The most heat-adapted
varieties can live very close to (and even inside of)
the vent. Wherever it is too hot for animal grazers
such as snails to intrude, microbes cling to the
rocks in communal mats of slime. Those that take
to the water column above the venting fluids
possess a whip-like flagellum by which to
locomote, sensing temperature or chemical
stimuli to guide their directional movements and
thus staying within or next to the vent stream. The
most audacious bacterial entrepreneurs are those
that have made themselves welcome guests
within the very tissues of the bivalves and tube
worms. There they are protected from prowling
grazers as well as errant currents.

The hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and methane
fuels consumed by both free-living and symbiotic
microbes in the vent communities are exploited by
microbes that access oxygen atoms loosely bound
in ferric iron oxide carried up from the depths in vent
fluids, oxygen derived from sulfate that pervades
seawater, and perhaps also free oxygen in the
seawater.
All animals, however, depend on molecular
oxygen for their metabolic needs. No animals are
known to extract oxygen directly from oxidized
materials in their surroundings. Many investigators
have therefore assumed that the macrofauna at the
vents depend on the molecular oxygen carried down
in seawater. Thus these species would still be
dependent-indirectly-on surface photosynthesis.
They would still be members of our food club.

The great abundance of molecular oxygen in the
atmosphere is mainly due to its production as a
waste product of photosynthesizers- by plants on
land and algae and cyanobacteria near the surface
of the sea. Molecular oxygen diffuses into surface
waters, especially at high latitudes, because the
solubility of oxygen in seawater is greatly increased
at low temperatures. Oxygen-rich waters from the
Arctic and Antarctic plunge to the deeps and then
slowly snake along the ocean floor, following valleys,
toward the equator. A global-scale system of
atmospheric and oceanic circulation thus
brings molecular oxygen to some deep areas of
the ocean floor.

Most of the ocean vents that have been
discovered are situated at volcanic ridges and high
spots of ocean floor, and such areas do not receive
the cold, oxygen-rich flows of polar waters. Whether
the oxygen that had diffused to these locations and
is made available only by slowly moving water would
be sufficient to foster the extremely rapid growth
observed at the vents is doubtful. Although the
ma cro fa una cannot extract oxygen from
other sources, microbial life can. If the supply of
oxygen is the limiting factor for the vent
community, then we have to suspect that symbiotic
exchange may have advanced to such a state that
the symbiont microbes within the animals are
stripping oxygen atoms from seawater sulfate not
only for themselves but also for their animal hosts.
No doubt further researches will determine
whence the macrofauna derive their oxygen. But,
as we shall discuss in the next section,
many microbial communities have been identified
that certainly have no access to atmospheric oxygen.

Life thrives at the ocean vents because these are
sites at the borders between two worlds. An
abundance of chemical energy can be extracted
from the chemicals that meet there and that had no
opportu nity to reach equilibrium with one another.
Upwelling fluids from the world below are rich in
"reduced" molecules, such as hydrogen and
methane. Hydrogen sulfide is also present, but we
do not yet know whether this is a primary fluid from
the depths of the earth or a product of microbes as
they utilize a combination of hydrogen and sulfate for
energy needs.

Of the three major sources that provide energy
when reacted with oxygen (hydrogen, hydrogen
sulfide, and methane), hydrogen sulfide has
attracted the most research interest, because it
seems to be the fuel on which the microbial
symbionts of the giant tube worms and clams
depend. But the carbon atoms that form the core of
all organic molecules must be obtained elsewhere.
The presence of methane in the output of ocean
vents thus assumes particular importance; it can be
the source of the required carbon as well as the
source of chemical energy.

Hydrocarbons bear a structural resemblance to
foods we eat that are derived from
photosynthesizers. For example, the only material
difference between a molecule of hexane (a six-
carbon form of petroleum) and a molecule of glucose
(a six-carbon sugar, common in foods at the surface)
is that hydrogen atoms surround the chain of carbon
i n hexane, whereas water molecules surround the
chain of carbon in the sugar. The hexane C6H14 is a
hydrocarbon, whereas the sugar C6H1206 is a
carbohydrate. The terminological difference is subtle
but important. For us animals the carbohydrate is
food, the hydrocarbon poison. Nevertheless, the
biological idiosyncrasies of our own tribe of complex
life should not be allowed to constrain our judgment
as to the possibilities-indeed preferences-among
the multi-talented microbes. They might well have a
metabolism that requires an input of petroleum.

Microbes that utilize methane as a source of
energy in the presence of oxygen, and also as a
source of carbon, are known to be present in the
hydrothermal vent communities. Such
methanotrophs ("methane eaters") have been
identified as symbionts within the macrofauna- thus
far, only in mussels-but they are presumably free-
living as well.2 They can consume heavier
hydrocarbons, too.

Are the methanotrophs of the deep-ocean vents
ambassadors from this other, deeper, and perhaps
independent world? We know that clams and worms
do not venture any deeper than the thin skin of
surface rock and sediments. But what about the
bacteria and archaea? If microbial slimes on the
rocks near and within the vents thrive on methane
and sulfide gases that rise up from below, might they
not also find suitable habitat within cracks and pore
spaces deep below the crustal surface?
Other Borderland Ecologies



ithin the past three decades, many
a n d various borderland ecosystems have been
discovered and their secrets probed. First to
capture scientific attention was a type that had long
been enjoyed by crowds of tourists: the microbial
communities that colorfully coat the rocks within hot
pools of Yellowstone National Park. Serious study of
the metabolisms of Yellowstone's thermophilic
(heat-loving) microbes began in the mid-1960s.3 It
was here that scientists first came to appreciate the
extraordinary talents of the earth's seemingly
simplest forms of life. For example, one bacterium
discovered in Yellowstone's hot pools, Therm us
aquaticus, provided the enzyme that launched the
molecular biology industry by making DNA
replication fast and easy. Today, Yellowstone's hot
springs offer rich prospecting for scientists seeking
to add new names to the list of microbes classified
in the taxonomic domain of Archaea.

In 1977 the exciting exotica we have already
discussed were discovered beneath the sea-the
elaborate assemblages of microbes and animals at
the edges of hot springs on the ocean floor. In 1984
came the discovery of more assemblages of
symbiotic microbes, tube worms, and bivalves-not,
this time, in the abyssal depths but on the
much shallower continental shelves.4 Similar in
form, but taxonomically different at the species or
even genus level, tube worms and bivalves on
the continental shelves were making their living
in "cold seep" regions, where crude oil and
hydrocarbon volatiles seep up through the
sediments. No hot springs or other hydrothermal
action is associated with these se e p s . Unlike
the hydrothermal vents, which are point sources
restricted in size, cold petroleum
seeps offer marine life chemical energy over
vast
expanses of the continental shelves that are too
deep to support photosynthesis. (In even the clearest
ocean waters, photosynthesis is impossible any
deeper than about 200 meters beneath the ocean
surface, and continental shelves often sink to a depth
of a kilometer or more.) Growth rates in the regions
of hydrocarbon seeps are not, however, as high as
they are at the actively venting rift zones of the deep
ocean.

On land, too, an ecosystem border realm has
captured scientific and public attention. In 1986 a
cave in Romania-until then, isolated from the
atmosphere-was discovered and found to contain a
thriving ecosystem based on the chemical energy of
reduced gases emanating from below. Ten years
later, when its biological inventory was published,
this cave habitat was touted by the media as the first
instance of a terrestrial ecology that was not based
on photosynthesis and yet was able to support not
just microbes but land animals as well.5 Feeding on
the bacterial base of the food web are more than
forty species of cavedwelling invertebrate animals,
including spiders, millipedes, centipedes, pillbugs,
springtails, scorpions, and leeches. Thirty-three are
new to science. As with the deep-ocean vent
habitat, hydrogen sulfide was identified as the
reduced gas supporting the base of the food
chain in this cave, though I suspect that methane
also plays a role. Indeed, methane consumers
may well be generating hydrogen sulfide as a waste
product when sulfate is used to oxidize methane,
in which case the sulfide consumers would be a
notch up from the base of the f o o d chain. Hydrogen
sulfide, converted by water into sulfuric acid,
probably carved out the limestone cave.

In 1997 another cave ecosystem based entirely on
chemical energy was explored in southern Mexico.
That cave, too, appears to have been carved out of
limestone by a flow of sulfuric acid. The acid fumes
i n this cave are so intense that scientists were able
to venture a mile into its tunnels only with the
assistance of breathing masks. Microbial life is so
prolific throughout that the walls are shrouded in
slime.' Feasting on the microbes is a community of
invertebrates, but this ecosystem also supports
vertebrates: tiny fishes in the waist-deep water that
occupies the tunnel system.

Also very recently, Russian scientists have been
preparing to explore a vast lake-as large as Lake
Ontario-that was discovered in central Antarctica
beneath four kilometers of ice.' Lake Vostok owes
i t s existence to the entrapment of heat upwelling
everywhere within the earth. The thick glacial ice,
strangely enough, acts as a thermal insulator,
segregating the heat from the intense cold of
Antarctic air. Remote sensors indicate a water depth
of perhaps 600 meters in some places, underlain by
sediments 100 meters thick. Drilling was halted 250
meters above the water line, pending
implementation of procedures that could ensure
sterile contact. If life is present down there, it will
unquestionably be based on chemical energy welling
up from below. To test that possibility, it is
imperative to prevent contamination of the pristine
lake by surface microbes. NASA has expressed
interest in fostering technologies for sterile
exploration of Lake Vostok, which would probably
happen no sooner than 2001. One reason for
NASA's interest is that a subglacial lake offers an
extraordinary analog for the subsurface environment
of Europa, a moon of Jupiter that is covered with a
thick layer of ice and may have liquid water
underneath that.'

An important discovery of very large amounts of
methane was made in the last two decades.
Methane hydrates, crystals of water ice that entrap
methane molecules within their lattices, exist in great
quantities on many areas of the ocean floor. The
presence of methane raises the freezing point of
water by an amount depending on the ambient
pressure, and therefore this ice can form in regions
where water is supplied in liquid form and then
freezes where methane is added.

For methane hydrates to form, temperatures must
be no greater than about 7C and pressures no less
than about 50 atmospheres. This means that
much of the sea floor that is outside of volcanic
zones and covered by water to a depth of 500
meters or more could support methane hydrates.`'
Within the past two decades we have learned,
both by remote sensing and by direct
sampling, that methane hydrates do indeed exist
in great quantities in many areas of the ocean floor.
They produce a clear and unique signature on
sonar and are remotely sensed as a distinct layer
in ocean muds, sometimes lying directly on the
bedrock of the ocean floor. A large area of the
continental shelf has been surveyed in this fashion.
Results indicate that methane hydrates may, in
fact, be present in all areas where the
pressure and temperature allow them to form.10 It
has been estimated that methane hydrates (those
within the Arctic permafrost layer as well as those
under the sea) contain more unoxidized carbon
than all other deposits of unoxidized carbon known
in the crust, such as crude oil, natural gas, and coal."

Often there is more carbon in the methane atoms
trapped in a deposit of hydrate than in all of the
sediments associated with that deposit. In
such instances the conventional explanation of its
source (biological materials buried with the
sediments) cannot account for the production
of so much methane. The methane embedded in
the ice lattices must have risen from below,
through innumerable cracks in the bedrock. Once a
thin, capping layer of the solid forms, the genesis
of more such hydrate underneath becomes an
inevitability, provided methane continues to upwell.

This conclusion-that the source of methane lies
beneath, not within, the crustal sediments-is
strengthened by evidence of pockets of free
methane gas beneath some regions of hydrate
ice12 and also beneath permafrost layers of Arctic
tundra.13 In these regions, downward migration of
methane gas from overlying sediments does not
seem conceivable. Gases, after all, do not migrate
downward in a liquid of greater density. If there is
any flow, it is in the reverse direction.

Lake Vostok, which we have just discussed, will
be an ideal place to check on the quantity of
hydrocarbons that have come up from below since
the ice cover formed. The quantities of methane
hydrates contained there may be very large,
they may even represent the major component
of the lake.

In the domain of high methane hydrates there is
also macro-life, just as at the ocean vents. Little
worms are found there that plough through the
methane hydrates and the overlying water.14 Their
existence indicates that such methane hydrates
have been there long enough to allow life to adapt
to the strange circumstances. Most probably
symbiotic microbes inside the worms use energy
derived from t he oxidation of methane. The
carbohydrates and other biological molecules the
microbes produce are then shared with their animal
hosts.

Hydrates made up with CO2 rather than methane
can exist also, though over a smaller stability
range of temperature and pressure than methane
hydrates. Nevertheless, there are substantial areas
of ocean floor that could support CO2 hydrates, but
few-if any- such samples have been found. The
conclusion must be that the "gentle" but
widespread addition of carbon to the atmosphere
is a global phenomenon o f diffusion from the
ground of methane and other hydrocarbons, no
doubt at different rates at different locations and at
different times. The dominance of CO2 over
methane from volcanoes is the exception and not
the rule. This conclusion then agrees with the finding
that methane is far more abundant than CO2 in
wellbores (to the good fortune of the petroleum
industry), and also with the evidence from meteorites
t h a t hydrocarbons and not CO2-producing
compounds will have been the principal input of
carbon in the forming earth. (Chapters 3 and 4 will
explore these points in detail).
Deep Is Desirable



n light of the discoveries of thriving
chemicalbased ecosystems associated with
me tha ne hydrates, hot ocean vents, and
cold petroleum seeps on the ocean floor, along with
those associated with hot springs and gas-rich
caves on land, we can conclude that methane,
hydrogen sulfide, and other energy-rich gases
(those that could provide large amounts of energy
if combined with supplies of oxygen) are attractive
to life forms that span a wide range of temperature.
Very close to the hot ocean vents, however, and
wherever hot springs on land are more than
merely warm-above, say, 45C-these habitats do not
support animals. But heat-loving (thermophilic)
microbes are abundant in these places.

As temperatures rise even more, thermophiles
drop out, but hyperthermophiles-microbes that grow
best at 80C or higher15-go about their business
unperturbed. The waxy cell membranes
characteristic of hyperthermophiles facilitate
material exchange at temperatures at which fatty
membranes like our own would simply melt.16
Hyperthermophiles can grow and reproduce only at
such high temperatures. At lower temperatures their
membranes stiffen to the point where materials can
no longer pass through as needed. Molecules
called heat-shock proteins enshroud the DNA and
regular proteins of hyperthermophiles,
guarding the intricately folded structures
against the unraveling that such high heat would
otherwise bring about.

What are the highest temperatures that
hyperthermophiles can tolerate? We are still
uncertain. But we do know that temperature alone is
no more determinative of an environment's livability
than it is determinative of a fluid's boiling point. One
more factor must be considered: pressure.

Although the boiling point of water is 100C at sea
level, it rises to a full 300C at a depth of just 876
meters. At that depth, the water column exerts a
pressure of 87 atmospheres, which means 87 times
more than the pressure exerted by the atmosphere
at the surface of the sea. This pressure is sufficient
to prevent water molecules at even 299C
from expanding into a vapor phase. Deeper still,
at a depth of 2.25 kilometers, the "critical
point" is reached. Here the pressure is so
great that no matter what the temperature, there is
no longer any distinction between vapor and
liquid. Rather, it is more appropriate to refer to
water beyond the critical point as existing as a
fluid-specifically, a "super- critical" fluid.

Now consider that the first community of
hydrothermal vent organisms ever witnessed in the
abyssal realm of the sea was found at a depth of 2.6
kilometers. Here water is a supercritical fluid. Water
at temperatures of about 300C has been detected
issuing from the vents, but it is cooled quickly as a
result of mixing with surrounding water. Boiling is not
an issue for organisms at that depth, because water
cannot boil there. Melting of membranes and
unraveling of proteins, rather, may become the
limiting factors for life at high temperatures."

Because of the effect of pressure, if one must
cope with temperatures approaching or exceeding
100C, then deep is certainly desirable. How
widespread are zones of such high temperature?
Hot springswhether on the sea floor or on land-are
far from the norm. They occur where heat generated
deep within the planet finds a rapid escape route to
the surface, by way of fluids buoyed up from below.
These are active volcanic zones. Far more common
are non-volcanic regions, such as those over which
you and I are probably sitting right now.

The earth generates its own heat from
compression, gravitational sorting, and radioactive
decay deep within its core and mantle. In a non-
volcanic region the temperature of the rock,
beginning at the surface, increases steadily with
depth and at a rate fairly uniform over the entire
globe. This phenomenon is referred to as earth's
thermal gradient. The temperature of the crust near
its contact with the atmosphere is approximately
20C over most of the area. The temperature
increases at a rate of between 15C and 30C per
kilometer of depth in nonvolcanic regions.

Hyperthermophiles are known that can grow at
temperatures of 110C. This means that, on average
and provided that the necessary chemical resources
are present, life as we know it could survive down to
a depth of six kilometers in regions of crust that
exhibit the low temperature gradient (15C per
kilometer or less) and three kilometers where the
temperature gradient is high (30C per kilometer). It
is not yet clear whether hyperthermophiles exist that
can tolerate higher temperatures still. Some
microbiologists consider that the temperature limit
for microbial life may be as high as 150C.18 In that
case, life might extend to deeper levels, in some
cool areas possibly to a depth of ten kilometers.

It is crucial to remember that because of the
steady rise in pressure with depth, nowhere within
the earth's crust (with the exception of volcanic
zones) does the combination of temperature and
pressure ever permit water to boil. What
about methane, the lightest and hence quickest to
boil of all hydrocarbons? Moving downward along
any thermal gradient, methane becomes denser at
the greater pressures of increasing depths, even as
it remains a vapor. What does this increase in
density mean for subterranean life forms that feed
on methane?

For one thing, the greater density means that
methane is actually easier for life to access at depth.
At a depth of six kilometers, for example, methane
would be 400 times as dense as it would be on the
s ur fa c e at atmospheric pressure. Also, higher
temperatures that coincide with greater depths
escalate the rate at which methane molecules collide
with the cell membranes of microbes. Both factors
enhance the rate at which methane would be
expected to diffuse across cell membranes. Deep is
thus desirable not only to ease some of the
biological problems created by high temperatures
but also to assist methane consumers in accessing
their food.

Up here in the surface biosphere, where methane
exists only as a diffuse gas, methane consumers are
a curious group. But methanotrophs may be far from
tangential members of the food web in the deep
biosphere. Indeed, they may be the foundation of
that system.
Beneath the Borderlands



o study the deep hot biosphere and
sample its inhabitants, we must probe far beneath
the borderland regions of hot springs, hydrothermal
vents, oil seeps, methane hydrates, and gas-rich
caves. We must peer into the bottom of deep wells
drilled into the earth's crust.

When I began developing the deep hot biosphere
idea in the early 1980s, and when my "Deep, Hot
Biosphere" paper was published in 1992,19 a
persistent criticism was that microbes brought up in
samples from the depths of oil and gas wells were
not native inhabitants but opportunists introduced
from the surface in biologically contaminated drilling
fluids.20 This contamination argument was at first
difficult to refute. But in 1995 a key paper published
in one of the top scientific journals demonstrated that
microbes discovered at a depth of 1.6 kilometers in
France were truly "members of a deep indigenous
thermophilic community."21 The following year
another report of indigenous microbes, this time
from an oil well in Alaska, established active biology
at a depth of 4.2 kilometers and a temperature of
110C.22 In 1997 the discovery of microbial fossils
embedded in granitic rock at a depth of 200 meters
confirmed the indigenous interpretation; fossils
cannot be introduced by drilling fluids into solid
granite.23

Thus far, the deepest indication of active biology
was detected in 1991, at a depth of 5.2 kilometers in
Sweden, as we will see in Chapter 6.24
Significantly, the well in which these microbes were
detected had been drilled into solid granitic bedrock,
not the sedimentary strata that generally attract
petroleum prospectors. A sample that had been
taken and sealed at depth and then drawn up was
cultured in the laboratory. It yielded previously
unknown strains of anaerobic microbes that
reproduced only in the temperature range from which
they had been sampled, 60C to 700C.

The term I coined, deep hot biosphere, is
sometimes mentioned in scientific papers or
media coverage interpreting such findings of
microbial life discovered at depth.25 Many of
these reports, however, misunderstand my
argument and, I believe, misinterpret the facts in
ways that are far from trivial. These errors are of two
types.

First, microbes drawn from deep oil wells are
rightly interpreted as feeding on hydrocarbons. But
there is an implicit assumption that the hydrocarbons
are the reworked remains of life that once belonged
to the photosynthetic food club-algae and the like.26
This is the standard Western view of a putative
biogenic origin of petroleum, which I will challenge in
the next chapter. As long as petroleum is
regarded as biogenic, then no matter how far down
life may be found in oil wells, it will always be
regarded as a novelty-a thrilling extension of the
surface biosphere downward as it mines its own
earlier remains.

A second error in reports heralding the discovery
of a deep biosphere, or even a deep hot biosphere,
is the characterization of indigenous microbes as
"rock-eating." This second error requires a bit more
explanation than the first. To begin with, "rock-
eating" is the usual interpretation of microbial
metabolism when microbes are discovered in wells
drilled in igneous rock. Because igneous rocks
formed from a melt, the only hydrocarbons they could
possibly contain must have migrated from
somewhere else after the magma cooled into rock.
T h e standard way of thinking would have
those hydrocarbons seep into the cracks and
pores of igneous rock from a sedimentary
"source" rock (such as black shale) nearby.
When there is no nearby source rock, this
explanation is of no use.
Reports of microbial life within igneous rocks are
considerably less widespread than reports of
microbes detected in sedimentary rocks. The
reason for their scarcity is simple: If we believe that
oil and gas are the reworked remains of surface life
long buried in sediments that consolidated into
rock, then why would anyone drill in igneous
territory? The number of boreholes drilled in
sedimentary rock is so much larger than the
number drilled in igneous rock that this disparity
alone can readily account for the difference in the
number of reports of microbial life from the two
domains.

Deep drilling into non-sedimentary rock has
nevertheless been undertaken, either for
explorations of a general kind or for an altogether
different purpose: to assess the radioactive
contamination of ground water. During the Cold War,
radioactive wastes generated by plutonium
production were not always disposed of carefully.
This was the case at the Hanford nuclear processing
facility in central Washington state, which was built
on Columbia River basalt. A test well drilled 400
meters into the igneous rock to sample radioactive
contami nati on of aquifers had the side effect of
revealing bacteria.27 What were they living on?
Because everyone believed that such an extensive
basalt could not possibly contain hydrocarbons, the
plentiful supply of methane detected there28 was
interpreted as a metabolic by-product of a later
stage in the food chain (with what source of
carbon?)-rather than, as I would have it, the fuel
source for the primary producers.

In igneous rocks, methane is by far the most
common fluid, second only to water. Methane is the
most likely fuel source, carbon source, and hydrogen
source at the base of the food chain. To my way of
thinking, carbon dioxide is largely a product of
microbial oxidation of hydrocarbons, not the
source of carbon for the base of the food chain.
This view- that hydrocarbons provide the carbon
source as well as the fuel for biosynthesis at depth-
has been greatly
strengthened by a paper published in 1994.29 Petra
Rueter and colleagues cultured a moderately
thermophilic microbe in conditions that confirmed
that this metabolic strategy was in use, with sulfate
providing the oxidant.

For many reasons, therefore, I do not agree with
the ecological interpretations of the researchers
working on the Columbia basalt aquifer.
Nevertheless, I can well understand how
mi sinterpretati ons could have been made. It is
difficult to sample, culture, and identify the presence
of indigenous life at depth. It is even more difficult to
determine the foundation of the food web and the
fuel and material sources on which the primary
metabolism is based. Until the primary metabolism
is identified, however, one cannot be sure whether a
particular chemical constituent is original resource or
biological product.

It should now be clear that the best way to learn
about the deep hot biosphere-and even to test
whether this hypothesized realm of life does indeed
exist-is to drill into rocks and examine what is down
there. Few if any holes have yet been drilled with the
express aim of searching for deep life. Wells are
drilled to search for commercial quantities of
hydrocarbons, to test for contamination of ground
wa t e r s , or to provide data for understanding
geological processes. Any microbial life
encountered during such ventures is almost always
di smi ssed as biological contamination from the
surface, introduced in the drilling fluids.

The borderland habitats are exciting, but they
cannot demonstrate with certainty whether and what
biological processes may be active at depth. Thus
far, we have had only glimpses of what may prove to
be a vast expression of earth life awaiting our
exploration. There has, fortunately, been a recent
surge in demand to study microbes hauled up from
depth. Interest in a deep hot biosphere (though not
ne c e s s a ri l y my stringent interpretation of
an
independent, hydrocarbon-based deep biosphere)
has blossomed. Part of this interest has been
stimulated by the numbers of deep wells that have
tested positive for biological inhabitants. Life is not
supposed to be down there, so our curiosity is
piqued. Another substantial part of the interest is
attributable to the success of the University of
Illinois evolutionist Carl Woese in convincing
biologists that a whole new domain of life awaits
explorationthe Archaea.B0

Until recently, all living organisms were classified
either as prokaryotes (which included all that was
then called bacteria) or eukaryotes (which included
plants, animals, fungi, slime molds, and single-cell
protoctists). Several important cellular features
distinguished these two groups, the principal
difference being that, in contrast to eukaryotes,
prokaryotes lack a nucleus to hold their genetic
material.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Woese discovered that
one set of prokaryotes (which he called
archaebacteria) was vastly different from all the rest
in its ribosomal RNA sequences and in some
important metabolic and morphologic features.
When the full genetic sequence of one of these
aberrant microbes was published in 1996,31 it was
clear to most experts that the prokaryote
classification would have to be rethought: The
archaebacteria contained many unique genes, and
archaebacteri al genes seemed to have more in
common with those of eukaryotes than with those of
the rest of the prokaryotic tribe. As a result of this
work, the prokaryotes are now typically considered
two "domains," one still known as Bacteria (or
Eubacteria), the other called Archaea. (Eukarya has
remained as before, but it is now regarded as the
third domain in this taxonomic system.)

Woese's conceptual revolution highlights the
importance of undertaking further research in the
domain Archaea, about which so little is known.
Moreover, the three-domain classification of life
indicates that hyperthermophily is the most ancient
of traits.

The reclassification of microbial life proposed by
Woese has a strong resonance with the concept of a
deep hot biosphere. The separate branch of life that
he has called the Archaea must have had an
early origin in the evolution of life, judging by
these organisms' simple genetic systems, and
because so many strains are hyperthermophiles,
they must have originated at a high temperature.
It seems very improbable that one form of
the thermophilic Archaea developed on one hot
ocean vent and spread from there to many other
locations, evolving into the great variety of strains
we now observe. It seems more likely that they
represent a global evolution of an early form of life
that depended on the supplies of chemical energy
that the earth delivered. Archaea would thus be
the product of a long evolution in a large,
connected, and long-lived habitat. They may be
the earliest inhabitantsand even today the principal
inhabitants-of the deep hot biosphere that
embraces the earth.

To probe the origin of earthly life, we must look to
the organisms that thrive in extreme heat. Only the
bacterial and archaeal domains include
hyperthermophiles, and only Archaea is dominated
by this trait. Where do we look for
hyperthermophiles? We can, of course, probe the
borderland systems of hot springs and deep-ocean
vents, but by far the greatest opportunity surely
resides within the further reaches of the deep hot
biosphere.

The deep hot biosphere theory will ultimately
stand or fall on evidence gained from the deep
earth-not from the borderlands, although the
borderlands do indicate the richness of possibilities,
as in the case of deep-ocean vents, cold petroleum
seeps, methane hydrates, and gasrich caves.
Among the most interesting aspects of hydrothermal
vent communities is that the methane involved in life
support in that realm has no biogenic explanation,
and yet methane is known to be abundant in
hydrothermal vent fluids.

A biogenic explanation is implausible because
there is little surface-derived sediment on, below, or
even near the active rifting zones of the deep ocean
floor. All rocks as far down as one may wish to probe
are igneous, which means they once flowed upward
through the crust as exceedingly hot liquid magma.
Yet in the popular opinion we all learned in school or
picked up from our culture, natural gas and
petroleum are regarded solely as the remains of
organisms reworked by geology into "fossil
fuels." Elevated (but not volcanic)
temperatures and elevated pressures-both induced
by burial of organic materi als that were once alive-
will, given sufficient time, perform this feat of
alchemy within the sediments that contain
organic residues (or so we are told). Methane is
therefore something to be found in sedimentary
rocks, not igneous regions. How, then, can
methane be associated with the volcanic rifting
zones of the ocean floor?

If the contention that the earth's stores of
petroleum liquids and most gases are in no way
derived from biology is correct, we should be able to
find these hydrocarbons in igneous as well as
sedi mentary regions. Crude oil is not a stew of
cooked algae, and though attempts have been
made, it has never been synthesized in a laboratory
from biological materials. Some methane is indeed
biogenic. Microbes called methanogens ("methane
generators," as distinct from methane-eating
methanotrophs) live in oxygen-poor habitats, such as
in the muds of rice paddies and the digestive tracts
of cattle, where they produce methane as a by-
product of their feeding strategies. We are also
familiar with methanol gasoline supplements distilled
from Iowa corn. But in my view, the greatest
portion of methane by far is not biogenic.
Rather, hydrocarbons must be understood as
primordial
constituents of solar system debris out of which the
earth formed some 4.5 billion years ago. This crucial
point will be explored in the next chapter.
(;h 11)let8
The Deep-Earth

Gas Theory





ew ideas in science are not right just
because they are new. Nor are old ideas wrong just
because they are old. A critical attitude is clearly
required of every seeker of truth.' But one must be
equally critical of both the old ideas as of the new.
Whenever the established ideas are accepted
uncritically and conflicting new evidence is brushed
aside or not even reported because it does not fit,
that particular science is in deep trouble. This has
happened quite often in several fields. In geology,
for example, a person who thought that continents or
parts of continents might have moved in the past
was ridiculed before 1960, despite the existence of
good evidence from magnetic rock measurements.
After 1965 anyone who did not believe in such
movement was again a subject of ridicule. In
petroleum geology, the massive and persuasive
evidence for a deep origin of the fluids is still treated
wi t h disdain and cannot be published in certain
journals.

Carbon and hydrogen can form a great variety of
molecules that have different ratios of carbon to
hydrogen and different molecular geometries, and all
are called hydrocarbons. At the temperatures and
pressures on or near the earth's surface, some
hydrocarbons are solid (coal), some are liquid
(crude oil), and some are in the vapor state (natural
gas, which is predominantly methane). Liquid and
gaseous hydrocarbons are commonly called
petroleum, which exhibits great variation in the
proportions of the various hydrocarbon molecules.
Petroleum also has unifying features that suggest a
similar mode of generation. How, then, is petroleum
formed?

At the present time, most petroleum geologists
outside the former Soviet Union would say that the
question has been completely answered-that
deposits of biological debris, reworked by
g e o lo g i c a l processes, account for all natural
petroleum. Elevated temperatures (but not elevated
to volcanic levels) and elevated pressures prevailing
at depth will, given sufficient time, perform this feat of
alchemy, transforming the remains of surface life
buried within sediments-or so we are told. Petroleum
is therefore regarded as "fossil fuel." Yet the
assemblage of widely accepted facts on petroleum
chemistries and their geographical and geological
occurrences, considered as a whole, does not
support a preference for this standard solution.

The alternative explanation, which I favor, is
referred to as the abiogenic, or deep-earth gas,
theory. In this view, natural gas and crude oil are
derived not from biological debris but from the initial
materi als that formed the earth. The goal of this
chapter and the next is to present the arguments and
evidence for this view. The abiogenic theory, in turn,
will then serve as the foundation for our discussion of
the title subject of this book: the deep hot biosphere
theory.
The Origin of Petroleum:
Two Conflicting Theories

ven though the biogenic origin theory
leads to many inconsistencies (which will be
addressed in Chapters 4 and 5), it is nevertheless
now virtually impossible in the Western world to
conduct any research in petroleum geology that
implies a questioning of this accepted position. A
young person-however brilliant-with no scientific
standing who attempted to do so would have no
hope of passing peer review either for obtaining
funds or for publishing contrarious results.
Fortunately for me, by the time I began nosing
around in the field of petroleum geology, I had
established a favorable standing for myself in the
fields of physics, including geophysics, and in
astron omy. I had by then been elected to
memberships in several prestigious learned
societies, and this standing made it possible for me
to air my heretical views on the origin and ubiquity of
oil and natural gas.

Beginning in 1977, I wrote a number of papers on
the subject of "deep-earth gas," in which I explained
my reasons for thinking that natural gas and other
hydrocarbons had originated at great depth-perhaps
100 to 300 kilometers beneath the earth's surface.2
This depth is nearly 100 to 300 kilometers deeper
than proponents of the biogenic view would place
the origin of petroleum, as a consequence of their
central presumption that petroleum forms from the
remains of surface life, buried with the sediments. I
presented the deep-earth gas theory during the time
of the so-called energy crisis, which, to my mind, had
arisen not because there was a physical shortage of
oil and gas but because a cartel of major oil
producers had gained much strength when several
senior petroleum geologists forecast that within
fifteen years all the reservoirs of crude oil in the
world would be exhausted. It was then in the interest
of the oil producers to cut back on production and
exact the most revenue possible from the remaining
reserves. Now, twentyfive years later, the world is
awash in oil and has more than it requires-even by
conservative estimates and even projecting
significantly increased rates of consumption.

My proposal (and that of many Russian
colleagues) that petroleum is abiogenic and
ubiquitous deep in the earth, though far from the
mainstream of opinion, did receive attention-
particularly from petroleum entrepreneurs3-because
of its practical importance well beyond the
boundaries of pure science. In 1982 I supplemented
the deep-earth gas theory in my own mind with the
concept that a "deep hot biosphere" was thriving on
these deep resources. A full decade passed before I
was able to publish this hypothesis.4 In taking this
next step, however, I finally managed to put
together all the pieces of evidenceincluding
some that had initially been supportive of the
biogenic theory of origin-in a way that I felt
provided a satisfactory resolution of all the
paradoxical information.

The origin of petroleum has been the subject of
many intense and heated debates since the 1860s,
when crude oil was first discovered to be present in
large quantities in the pore spaces of many
rocks. Was it something present when the earth
was first formed? Or is it a fluid concentrated
from huge amounts of vegetation and animal
remains that may have been buried in the
sediments over hundreds of millions of years?
Arguments have been advanced for each of these
two viewpoints, and although they seem to conflict,
each line of argument has its strong points.

The biogenic theory holds that biological debris
buried in sediments decays into oil and natural gas
in the long course of time and that this petroleum
then becomes concentrated in the pore spaces of
sedi mentary rocks in the uppermost layers of the
crust. The search for oil was conducted with this
theory of biological origin in mind, so the presence
of biological material in the sediments was regarded
as a key indicator of strata worth prospecting.
Where petroleum reservoirs were found in rocks
possessing no materials that could have given rise
to the oils, it was simply accepted that crude oil and
natural gases often migrate vast distances and that
source rocks may therefore sometimes be
indeterminable.

The biogenic theory of the origin of petroleum was
widely adopted around the 1870s, when the earth
was thought to have formed as a very hot body,
perhaps a body of molten rock. If this had
been correct, then no hydrocarbons supplied with
the hot rocky material could have survived; they
would all have been oxidized to CO2 and H2O.
So long as this mode of origin of the earth was
the dominant view, an abiogenic origin of
petroleum, formed from materials accumulated in
the formation of the earth, was not a tenable
viewpoint. At that time, the formation of
petroleum from vegetation, after the surface had
cooled sufficiently, seemed to be the only possible
explanation. The subsequent discovery of molecules
of clearly biological origin in all natural oils greatly
strengthened the biogenic theory.

The present theory of the formation of the earth is
that it formed by the assembly of cold solid pieces
condensed from a nebula surrounding the sun. Much
of the material so acquired would have escaped
excessive heating, and an abiogenic solution now
seemed possible; but the biogenic theory was by
then so firmly entrenched that opposing evidence
was brushed aside. Even when, in the 1940s, the
presence of many hydrocarbons on other planetary
bodies of the solar system was discovered (bodies
that could not have acquired them from vegetation),
it continued to be maintained that just our
earth acquired hydrocarbons from a source that
could be
supplied only here: vegetation.

Now, whenever crude oil or natural gas is
encountered in igneous rocks (rocks that froze from
a melt), the hydrocarbons are deemed to have
migrated from a sedimentary "source" rock. In this
view, igneous rocks underlying the deepest
sedimentary rocks offer no prospect whatsoever for
containing hydrocarbons, and so very few holes have
been drilled into these "basement" rocks. Nearly all
wells were drilled in sedimentary rocks, so nearly all
oil was produced from sedimentary rocks. Before
long, this fact was then taken to show that sediments
were essential for producing oil. Sedimentary strata
were indeed essential for the production of much of
the oil we now have, not because there is
necessarily more oil in the sediments but because
that is where oil companies chose to drill. Belief in
the biogenic origin of petroleum thus led to a self-
fulfilling prophecy.

The theory of the biological origin of hydrocarbons
was so favored in the United States and in much of
Europe that it effectively shut out work on the
opposing viewpoint. This was not the case in the
countries of the former Soviet Union. Much work has
continued there, on both sides of the debate, since
the middle of the nineteenth century. In attempting to
resolve this issue, the Soviet Union seems to have
b e e n more lenient toward scientific dissent
than were the Western countries, probably
because Mendeleyev, the revered Russian
chemist, had supported the abiogenic view. The
arguments he presented are even stronger today,
given the greatly expanded information we now
have.

The abiogenic theory holds that hydrocarbons
were a component of the material that formed the
earth, through accretion of solids, some 4.5 billion
years ago. With increasing internal heat, liquids and
gases were liberated, and because they were less
dense than the rocks, buoyancy forces drove them
upward. In favorable conditions, the upward journey
from the regions of origin would be dammed
temporarily in porous rocks at depths that our drills
can reach, and from which we then derive
commercial petroleum.

In volcanic regions we have a different situation.
There channels of liquid can extend to great depths
without interruptions, as pressure differentials
between the solid rock and the nearly equally
dense magma will be small. If methane from
deeper levels enters such a channel, it will ascend
as a mass of bubbles, and each bubble will
have contact with fresh magma surface many
times over in the ascent. Whatever loosely bound
oxygen may be available there will be captured by
the bubbles and at the high temperature will
oxidize the methane to CO2 and water. So it is
not surprising that the emission from volcanoes at
quiet times produces mostly CO2 and water, and
only a small percentage of methane (reported
in most volcanoes as 2-5 percent, but much
higher in some; in the Azores the figure quoted is 17
percent). But in major eruptions of these same
volcanoes often a large amount of flammable gas is
involved, and flames have been seen on many such
occasions. The most clearly identifiable case was in
the course of eruptions under the sea surface of one
of the Krakatau volcanoes in the Sunda Straits,
eruptions that did not break through the surface of
the water but resulted in flames dancing on the
surface over large areas. In this case there can be
no confusion between flames and volcanic spray of
red-hot ash, as has been suggested for many events
where the presence of flames had been reported.
Seemingly reliable reports of flames have also come
from Central American volcanoes, from Santorini in
the Mediterranean north of Crete, and from the great
African Rift. (The chance of seeing the flames in an
eruption is dependent on wind driving the
dense smoke aside from the more vertical flame.)

In a violent eruption there will not be the
small bubbles that come up at quiet times; instead
there will be large plumes of gas, racing upwards
through
the molten rock. The contact area between gas and
rock will be much smaller, and the time of such
contact much shorter, thus reducing the amount of
oxidation that can take place. All in all, a variety of
evidence indicates that hydrocarbons or hydrogen
are major components of the volcanic gases.

The CO2 that is commonly seen in volcanoes at
quiet times gives no proof that CO2 is the primary
carbon gas supplied to the surface of the earth.
Where the emission of gases into the atmosphere
can be measured directly, methane is almost always
the dominant carbon gas, except when the
measuring zone approaches an area of active
volcanism, and there CO2 often dominates. (I will
return to this point in the discussion of mud
volcanoes in Chapter 8.)

Plumes of hydrocarbons that find their way to the
earth's surface without encountering magma may or
may not be oxidized en route. They will in any case
be oxidized soon after exposure to the oxygen-rich
atmosphere. What this means is that the ultimate
fate of primordial hydrocarbons is to be oxidized into
carbon dioxide and water.

The abiogenic theory of petroleum formation
depends on the truth of five underlying assumptions.
First, hydrocarbons, or compounds that could have
been converted into hydrocarbons at the intense
pressures of the earth's depths, must have been a
common constituent of the primordial materials out
of which the earth was formed. Second, in the four
and a half billion years since the earth accreted, the
primordial hydrocarbons must not subsequently have
become dissociated and fully oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water by exposure to the significant
amounts of oxygen bound in the rocks of the earth's
crust. Third, hydrocarbons must be chemically stable
at the combinations of high temperature and
pressure that prevail deep within the earth. Fourth,
hydrocarbon fluids must have found or created
suitable pores in which to exist at depth and through
which to travel in their journey upward, driven by
buoyancy forces due to their low density compared
with that of the rocks. Fifth and finally, a source of
hydrocarbons must still exist at great depth. Can
these five assumptions all be valid?
Five Assumptions Underlying
the Deep-Earth Gas Theory

1. Hydrocarbons are
primordial.

The first assumption underlying the abiogenic view
of petroleum formation-that hydrocarbons were a
common constituent of the primordial materials out
of which the earth accreted-is now common
knowl edge among astronomers and planetary
scientists whose domain of inquiry expands out to
the breadth of this star system and beyond. But
it must be remembered that the biogenic theory
of petroleum formati on was developed in the
1870s, before scientists had any notion that
socalled "organic" molecules, including
hydrocarbons, are in fact abundant in the
universe. This fact of astronomy has been known
since the early decades of the twentieth century,
thanks to the invention of spectrographs that analyze
wavelengths in the optical and radio portions o f the
electromagnetic spectrum. With these tools,
chemical determinations have been made of distant
bodies by capturing the spectral signatures of solar
light either filtered through a planetary atmosphere
or, less accurately, reflected by the surfaces of solid
bodies that have no atmosphere. The consequences
of these discoveries have not yet been fully
integrated into the geological thinking of the present.
The earth is, after all, a planet, and thus geology
should be regarded first and foremost as a subset of
planetary science, but that view has been slow to
take hold. Because I spent a good part of my
working life as an astronomer, I was made aware of
the importance and the reliability of these
observations early on.

What have the spectrographic studies revealed?
Fundamentally, they have demonstrated that carbon
is the fourth most abundant element in the universe
and also in our solar system (after hydrogen, helium,
and oxygen). Among planetary bodies, carbon is
found mostly in compounds with hydrogen-
hydrocarbons-which, at different temperatures and
pressures, may be gaseous, liquid, or solid.
Astronomical techniques have thus produced clear
and indisputable evidence that hydrocarbons are
major constituents of bodies great and small within
our solar system (and beyond). The greatest quantity
i s found in the massive outer planets and their
satellites. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have
large admixtures of carbon in their extensive
atmospheres, chiefly in the form of hydrocarbons-
ma i nl y methane. Titan, a moon of Saturn, has
methane and ethane (CH4 and C2H6) and several
other hydrocarbon molecules in its atmosphere.
Much like water in our own atmosphere, these
hydrocarbon molecules are responsible for the
clouds we see on Titan, presumably precipitat ing as
rain onto methane-ethane lakes or seas. The
temperature at that distance from the sun (9.5 times
more distant than is the earth and thus receiving only
a little more than 1 percent of the radiation intensity
we receive here) puts these compounds just into the
range where they can exist in liquid or vapor
form, whereas water on the surface there could of
course be present only as very cold ice.

Planets and their moons are not the only
reservoirs of hydrocarbons in our star system.
Many of the asteroids-the swarm of minor planetary
bodies between Mars and Jupiter-also seem
to have hydrocarbons on their surfaces and
probably in their interiors. The recent flyby of a
European instrumented spacecraft past
Halley's Comet strongly suggests that
hydrocarbons coat the surface of that icy body too.
Indeed, all the planetary bodies of the solar system
appear to have formed initially by the aggregation of
solids.

Here at home we find further evidence that
hydrocarbons were indeed a common constituent of
the accreting earth. Meteorites colliding with the
earth even today provide samples of the ancient
materials from which planets formed. Those of the
carbonaceous chondrite class contain some volatile
substances, and it is widely held that this class
supplied the earth with most of its complement of
volatiles. Although carbon is a minor constituent of
other types of meteorites, it is present at a level of
several percent in the carbonaceous chondrites,
mostly in unoxidized form, with a certain fraction in
the form of hydrocarbon compounds. The Russian
isotope investigator E. M. Galimov has made a
strong case that the earth acquired a good
proportion of carbonaceous chondrite material,
because many isotope ratios of volatile elements in
our atmosphere match closely the ratios in those
meteori tes but are substantially different from the
ratios found in other meteoritic materials. Galimov
shows the earth's isotopic ratios of two stable
isotopes of hydrogen and carbon, as well as those of
neon, argon, and xenon (three inert gases) to be
similar to those in the carbonaceous chondrites, but
substantially different from the values on other types
of meteoritic materials; for neon the difference is as
large as a factor of 500. By concentrating on the
noble (chemically inert) gases in making these
comparisons, Galimov assured himself that he would
see sam pies that were not contaminated with the
jumble of different materials of the crust.5

It is therefore clear that the occurrence of
hydrocarbon molecules within the earth is in no way
an anomaly. It would be surprising indeed if the
earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a
source that biology had taken from another carbon-
bearing gas-carbon dioxide-which would have
been collected from the atmosphere by
photosynthesizing organisms for manufacture into
carbohydrates and t h e n somehow reworked
by geology into hydrocarbons. All this, while
the planetary bodies bereft of surface life would
have received their hydrocarbon gifts by
purely abiogenic causes. (Remember that
carbon is an element, and no processes on
earth-other than human-built nuclear reactors-can
create it. I am sure there were no big stagnant
swamps on Titan or Pluto.)
Conventional thinking within astronomy, along with
me te o ri te studies, thus confirms the first
key assumption underlying the abiogenic
theory. Hydrocarbons-and unoxidized carbon-
were i mportant constituents of the materials from
which the earth was assembled. Oxidized carbon
was not. It is therefore a strange assumption to
consider carbon dioxide as the primary carbon
source that the earth provided for its nascent life.
Among surface life, carbon dioxide is indeed the
carbon source, but it does not necessarily
follow that carbon was suppli ed to the
atmosphere in this form, constantly and over most
of geological time. The earth's highly oxygenated
atmosphere would have ensured the
transformation of upstreaming hydrocarbons into
carbon dioxide soon after their emergence from the
earth's crust. At deep levels in boreholes,
hydrocarbons are much more abundant than carbon
dioxide, an observation that confirms the deductions
from astronomical and meteorite evidence.
2. The earth was
subjected to only a
partial melt.

What about the second assumption, that the
forces at work in a young aggregating
earth and thenceforward for more than four billion
years did not heat and rework the materials
into a state of chemical equilibrium? Could a
significant amount of those primordial
hydrocarbons have remained unoxidized?

Until the middle of the twentieth century, it was
thought that the earth had formed as a hot body, that
it had been a ball of liquid rock-as such, no
doubt well mixed-and that it had then gradually
cooled, providing a differentiated crust
overlying a homogeneous mantle. In such an
evolutionary history, no primordial hydrocarbons
could have survived the molten state. Even if
hydrocarbons had initially been supplied in the
formation process, then
according to the molten-Earth viewpoint, they surely
would have been destroyed soon thereafter. To
account for the supply of excess carbon to the
surface, advocates of this theory thought in terms of
oxidized carbon only, because that would be the
stable form expected in such a case. Carbon
dioxide was indeed found to come out of volcanoes,
which apparently confirmed this viewpoint.

It has become quite clear now that our planet, as
well as the other inner planets and the satellites of
the outer planets, all accreted as solid bodies from
solids that had condensed from a gaseous planetary
disk. The primary condensates, ranging in size from
small grains to asteroidsize planetismals, all
contributed to the formation of the final earth. In the
early earth, partial melting did take place, causing
melts of lower density to make their way to the
surface while, presumably, melts of higher density
sank down toward the center. The heat that
g e ne r a t e d this melting was the product of
radioactivity contained in the material, as well as the
heat resulting from gravitational compression. Once
partial melting occurred, two other sources of heat
came into play. For one, gravitational energy was
released as materials moved and sorted themselves
according to density. Second, there was the
chemical energy of spontaneous reactions among
mixing materials, because the original materials that
were accreted as cold objects would not have been
in the lowest chemical-energy configurations. The
low-density partial melts produced the rocky layer
that we call the crust. This crust covers nearly all the
surface, and every basement rock could be seen to
have once been a liquid magma or a partially molten
aggregate, so scientists were left with the
impression that the earth had frozen from an initial
melts

This picture of a once-liquid earth was adopted,
and it shaped much of the discussion in the
early days of geology. Even though by now it is quite
clear that only a partial melting was involved and
that the
bulk of the planet had never been molten, the
thorough reevaluation of geological theory that such
a change should have inspired has never occurred.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the discussion
o f the origin of volatile substances on the surface:
the water of the oceans, the nitrogen of the
atmosphere, and the carbon-bearing fluids that
appear to have been responsible for a great
enrichment of the surface with carbon.

Within an initially molten earth, the volatiles would
have come to the surface in the first phase. Later,
when such a body had cooled, there would be little
expectation of a renewed supply of volatiles from
below. Quite the opposite, however, would be the
expectation on a cold body that was heating up:
Successive layers would reach temperatures at
which volatiles would be driven off. Outgassing
processes would be expected to continue as long as
internal temperatures were increasing in any part of
the body. Furthermore, there would be quite different
expectations of the chemical nature of the various
volatile substances. On a hot early earth, most fluids
would be brought to the lowest chemical energy
configuration early on, and later they could not
provide any source of energy. In contrast, on a cold
body that was heating up, the fluids that were
produced would often be out of chemical equilibrium
with their surroundings and could thus be a source of
chemical energy.'

As noted in Chapter 2, a source of chemical
energy from within the earth is a foundational
premise for the deep hot biosphere theory. If there is
no chemical energy to be exploited-that is, if all
substances within the earth have come to chemical
equilibrium-then the only energy source for earth life
would be sunlight falling on the surface. An
understanding of the oxidation state of carbon within
the earth is thus of central importance.

The question of the stability of the earth's
primordial supply of hydrocarbons against oxidation-
that is, against combining with oxygen contained in
the silicate and other minerals of rocks-is intimately
connected with the details of the outgassing
process. If the gases ascend in regions of magma,
then (as we have already discussed) chemical
equilibrium between the hydrocarbons and the
magma would be approached, and this would
usually favor oxidation of the hydrocarbon gases.
Thus it is no surprise that volcanoes generally emit
carbon mainly in the form of CO2, with only
minor amounts as methane, CH4.

Where gases make their way through solid rock,
however, the fate of the hydrocarbons is altogether
different. In that case, no chemical equilibrium
between the rock and the gas need be expected.
Many investigators had based their considerations
on such an equilibrium having been established, and
that would preclude an ascent of methane; it
would all have been turned into carbon dioxide
at deep levels. Rather than churning in a brew of
magma, encountering molecule upon molecule of
potential oxidant, any gas upstreaming instead
through solids comes into contact with only a very
limited amount of rock on the surfaces of pores. A
sufficient flow of hydrocarbons moving through
pores and cracks over a sufficient period of time
will draw out all available oxygen, thus allowing
hydrocarbons later following t h e same
pathways upward to pass without
compromise. What this means is that although active
volcanic features are the most obvious places to
sample gases that have risen from great depths,
because of oxidation processes they are the worst
places to obtain a representative reading of the
composition of gases and other fluids at depth. The
best places to get a representative reading are
areas removed from volcanoes and from any
other indications of magma dwelling beneath-just
average areas of ocean floor and continental
surface.

Deep-earth gas theory thus depends, in part, on
the validity of a second assumption. Hydrocarbons
must not only have been primordial constituents of
the newly accreted earth; they must also not
subsequently have been fully oxidized. The earth
must have been subjected to only a partial melt.
3. Hydrocarbons are
stable at great depth.

Now we turn to the third assumption on which the
abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation depends,
the thermodynamic stability of hydrocarbons at great
depth. It used to be thought that temperatures
above
600C would dissociate even the simplest and most
heatresistant hydrocarbon, methane (CH4), and that
temperatures as low as 300C were sufficient to
destroy most of the heavy hydrocarbon components
of natural petroleum. Because such temperatures
are reached at depths of only a few tens of
kilometers in the crust, it seemed pointless to
discuss an origin of hydrocarbons from non-
biological sources at deeper levels. If the origin had
to be found in the upper and cooler parts of the crust,
then there was really no alternative to the biogenic
theory.

This conventional view on the thermal instability of
hydrocarbons reigned unchallenged simply because
the cost of conducting experiments at the
appropriate pressures was prohibitive and the
i mportance of doing so was not appreciated.
Calculations of thermal stability that were undertaken
in the West did not take into account the substantial
effects of pressure: High pressure greatly stabilizes
hydrocarbons against thermal dissociation. We must
therefore assess the question of hydrocarbon
stability not only at the temperatures, but also at the
pressures, that prevail at various depths.

Thermodynamic calculations made by the
geoscientist E. B. Chekaliuk and published in a
Russian journal in 1980 indicate that methane would
resist complete dissociation down to a depth of 300
kilometers, except in volcanic regions that breach
the normal temperature gradient of the earth."
Perhaps a depth of somewhere around 600
kilometers would be the lower limit for the possible
existence of methane within the earth.9 (See Figure
3.1.)

What about the heavier hydrocarbon molecules
that make up the bulk of petroleum? Thermodynamic
calculations done in Russia and in the Ukraine have
suggested not only that most of these molecules are
stable in the pressure-temperature regimes that
prevail at depths between 30 and 300 kilometers but
also that they would be generated if a mix of simple
carbon and hydrogen atoms were present at those
depths.

At a depth of, say, 200 kilometers, a mix of
hydrocarbon molecules would be the expected
equilibrium configuration-and this despite thermal
conditions that, were pressure not taken into
account, would be far in excess of the threshold for
dissociation of these molecules. The detailed
chemistry of the resulting molecules would depend
on pressure, temperature, and the carbon-hydrogen
ratio. Other atoms that might also be present, such
as oxygen and nitrogen, would form a variety of
complex molecules with the carbon and hydrogen.















Figure 3.1 Stability of hydrocarbons at
temperatures and pressures in the earth (from
Chekaliuk, 1976). The vertical scale on the left
represents pressure marked in bars, where 1
bar is equal to the pressure exerted by the
atmosphere; thus the top of the diagram denotes
the surface of the earth. The vertical scale on the
right represents the depth corresponding to the
pressure, assuming a mean density of rock of
3.5 times the density of water. The increase of
temperature with depth in the earth is referred to
as the "geotherm," and the region between the
two geotherms is the region that might represent
the temperature-depth relation in different
locations. The deep ground under the oceans is
generally hotter than deep ground at the same
depth on the continents, as can be seen in the
figure. Methane (CH4) is the most stable
molecule of the hydrocarbons; most of it
would survive at all levels down to 300
kilometers, provided the temperature there did
not exceed
20000C. For the other components of natural
petroleum-paraffins, aromatics, and naphthenes-
the percentages in equilibrium are shown; these
would be the values most likely to be produced
from a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. Methane
streaming from great depth could bring up, in
solution, significant fractions of these petroleum
components.
It is very interesting to consider that complex
molecules made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen are also made by life-but life can perform
this feat even at the low pressures that prevail at or
near the earth's surface. These molecules we call
proteins. At the very great pressures prevailing at
depth, a further degree of molecular complexification
might also occur. Metal atoms present at such
depths would combine with the hydrocarbons to form
organometallic compounds (a prospect we shall
examine in Chapter 7, because it may well bear on
the formation of near-surface deposits of
concentrated metals). Enzymes, catalysts for
biochemical reactions, are often composed of
metal atoms in complex molecules made with
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.
4. Rock at depth contains
pores.

What about the simple physical assertion that a vast
amount of hydrocarbons can indeed remain at great
depth within the earth's crust because pore spaces
do in fact exist in those realms to accommodate
their presence, and mechanisms do exist to facilitate
their flow?

I first became interested in the question of whether
pores exist at great depths during the early
1950s when I was still at Cambridge. What
sparked my
interest was a clearly erroneous statement I had
come upon in a geology textbook, which I was
reading more out of curiosity than with any particular
question in mind. There it was stated that rocks
porous enough to hold and transmit fluids must be
restricted to a thin outer layer of the crust, not much
deeper than the depths to which the deepest
petroleum wells penetrate. Below that, the textbook
explained, the weight of the overburden would be so
great that even the strongest rocks would be crushed
to a degree that all pore spaces would be
eliminated; no fluids could be contained there, and
n o movement of any fluids through all the deeper
rocks would be possible. A calculation was given,
showing the measured crushing strengths of rocks
and comparing them with the pressures that would
be exerted by the weight of the overburden.
Superficially this may have sounded convincing, and
the numbers used were quite correct. What was
wrong was the implication that fluids could not be
contained at deeper levels, even if they were at a
pressure similar to that of the rocks.

I remember discussing this with my friend and
colleague at Cambridge, the astronomer Fred
Hoyle. Jokingly I said, "This is about as silly as the
question of a schoolboy who first learns
about atmospheri c pressure and asks why he
is not squashed as flat as a pancake if there is a
pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch on his
body." We discussed the situation of a "pressure
bath," where everything-rocks and liquids and
gases-is immersed at each level in a common
pressure. Under such conditions there would be just
as much porosity and permeability, in the form of
connected pore spaces that allow fluids to
migrate, as exist in near-surface rocks and
sediments at low pressures. Just as the schoolboy
was not squashed flat, so the deep pores would not
be squashed out.

Recall from Chapter 2 that life along the deep-
ocean vents must grow from tiny eggs into mature
clams and tube worms at pressures 20 to 200 times
greater those than we surface creatures experience.
Li ving creatures are just as delicate down there as
they are up here, and yet the high pressure of the
deep ocean does not pose a problem for biological
growth, which can be thought of as the creation of
more and more "pores" in the form of cells.
Pores within rock, like cells within living organisms,
can be maintained at very high pressures, so
long as the fluid that occupies the pore or cell
exerts an outward pressure as great as the
opposing pressure of the surroundings. It is this
pressure balancing or differential, not absolute
pressure, that determines the fate of a pore.

This argument in favor of deep crustal porosity
first appeared in Hoyle's book Frontiers in
Astronomy, published in 1955. Hoyle had written it
up as a chapter entitled "Gold's Pore Theory." When
I took up the subject again a quarter-century later, I
had quite forgotten about that early discussion and
Hoyle's publication of the idea, but I developed
exactly the same notion. Only later did I find the
chapter in Hoyle's book showing that I had said the
same thing long ago!

Beginning at the earth's surface, rocks of the
same composition do indeed tend to become less
porous at depth, down to a level devoid of
substantial connections between pores. At that level
there would be great resistance to the flow of a
liquid. Petroleum geologists therefore extrapolated
from this curve of diminishing porosity to the
conclusion that at even greater depths there would
be even less porosity and permeability. But quite the
opposite is true. At a critical depth limit, where the
flow is greatly impeded by the compression of the
rock, this incomplete but nevertheless effective
barrier allows a higher pore pressure to be built up
behind it by fluids under higher pressure coming up
from below. In this somewhat deeper domain, we
may therefore expect to see again a high porosity
and permeability of the rock. Instead of having the
idealized "pressure bath" discussed earlier, a rock
that has a finite compressive strength will set up a
stepwise approximation to it. When the crushing
pressure on the rock is reached, the rock will
compress to the low-permeability state. (Crushing
pressure is determined by the overburden weight of
rock less the fluid pressure given by the head of fluid,
which is usually only about one-third of the
former because most fluids are about one-third as
dense as the rock.) At yet deeper levels the same
pattern may occur again, and there may be several
cycles before the rock is so hot that it lacks
mechanical strength, at which stage the ideal
pressure bath will be established.

Conventional criticism that hydrocarbon fluids
cannot exist at depth for lack of pore space thus
does not stand up to scrutiny.
5. Hydrocarbons are still
upwelling.

The final assumption on which the abiogenic theory
of petroleum formation depends is that to account for
the hydrocarbons now available in the crust, a
hydrocarbon source from which those fluids upwelled
i s still present at great depth. A variety of empirical
evidence at or near the surface argues in this
direction. In Chapter 4, we shall see that the
chemical data (carbon isotopes) that critics present
as the strongest refutation of the abiogenic theory
actually argue in its favor. In Chapter 5, I will
show how the biochemical data can be seen as
consistent with the abiogenic theory. In Chapter 6, I
will present a very strong challenge to the
biogenic theory by relating the results of deep
drilling in a geological province (entirely igneous)
where, according to conventional theory,
hydrocarbons simply cannot exist.







he abiogenic theory of petroleum
formation presumes that an enormous source of
primordial hydrocarbons resides in the upper
mantle and lower crust-far deeper than can be
drilled and sampled directly. Consequently, we must
search for evidence in the regions of crust that our
drilling equipment can penetrate. What empirical
evidence in the shallow crust or at the earth's
surface favors the theory that a substantial source of
hydrocarbons exists at great depth?

The empirical evidence is of seven main types.'
First, reservoirs of petroleum, including the
various gaseous forms such as methane and
ethane, are frequently found in geographical
patterns of long lines or arcs extending for
hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. The
island-studded arc of Indonesia is perhaps the best
example. These linear patterns are related more to
deep-seated and large- scale structural features
of the crust than to the smaller-scale
patchwork of the sedimentary deposits. Dmitry
Mendeleyev, the Russian chemist who originated
the periodic table of elements, noted these large-
scale patterns of the occurrence of
hydrocarbons in the 1870s, and much new
information has greatly strengthened the case.

Second, petroleum deposits that have been
discovered follow what is known as Koudryavtsev's
rule: Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be
hydrocarbon-rich at all lower levels, corresponding to
quite different geological epochs, and extending
down to the crystalline basement that underlies the
sediment.' Russia's great petroleum geologist of the
e a r l y part of the twentieth century, N. A.
Koudryavtsev, cited many examples from all over the
world that clearly showed this depth effect, as many
subsequent Russian petroleum geologists have also
done. Even where drilling has penetrated past the
sedimentary strata and into the basement rock,
evidence of hydrocarbons does not run out. Invasion
o f an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could
better account for the vertical reach of hydrocarbons
than does the chance of successive deposition of
hydrocarbon-producing biological sediments in
epochs that differ by tens of millions of years and
that show no similarities of climate, vegetation, or
other relevant characteristics.

Third, methane is found in many locations where a
biogenic explanation for its presence is improbable
or where biological deposits seem inadequate to
account for the size and extent of the methane
resource. These anomalous locations include the
great ocean rifts (which lack any substantial
sediments); fissures within rocks that had clearly
frozen from a melt at a temperature too high and a
pressure too low for any pre-existing hydrocarbons
or biological remains to have persisted in such
extreme conditions; and depths far below any
sediments that contain biological materials.
(Chapter 6 will provide a detailed look at one
such occurrence of hydrocarbons in Sweden.) In
addition, as noted in Chapter 2, huge amounts of
methane hydrates have been discovered covering
vast areas o f the ocean floor. Methane
hydrates are also present in large amounts in
permafrost ground.3
Their widespread distribution indicates that many or
most regions of the crust emit some methane
enough over long periods of time to saturate any
domain in which this ice is stable. The outflow rates
may be quite variable regionally, however. The view
that the main carbon supply to the surface comes
from volcanic emission of carbon dioxide is thus in
doubt, so long as no estimate has been made of the
sum of the diffuse outflows of methane over all sea
and land surfaces.

Fourth, the hydrocarbon deposits of a large area
often show common chemical features regardless of
the varied composition or the geological ages of the
formations in which they are found. Such chemical
"signatures" may be seen, for example, in the
abundance ratios of some minor constituents, such
as traces of certain metals that are carried in
petroleum (the most common but by no means the
only ones are nickel and vanadium), and in a
shared tendency to favor some of the different
molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical
analysis of a sample of petroleum often makes it
possible to identify the general area of its origin,
even though the oils of that region may be coming
from a wide variety of geological formations.

Fifth, as many observers have noted, a number of
hydrocarbon reservoirs seem to be refilling as they
are exploited for commercial production. As I shall
soon explain, the abiogenic theory would account for
this observation. I do not think the biogenic theory
could-at least, I have not heard of any prediction of
the refilling phenomenon. It has simply been
observed and noted.

Sixth, the distribution of the large amounts of
carbonate rock in the upper crust and the isotopic
composition of the carbon atoms within it argue
against the theory of a surface biological origin of
most of the buried hydrocarbons.

Seventh and finally, the clear, well-established
regional associations of hydrocarbons with the
chemically inert gaseous element helium have no
explanation in the theories of a biological origin of
petroleum. But as we shall see, these associations
are explained if the hydrocarbons have ascended
from great depth.
Of these seven classes of empirical evidence
favoring the abiogenic theory of petroleum formation,
the first four are well known in the petroleum
business. The brief descriptions just provided are
adequate for our purposes, and I shall not expand
further on them here. For the last three points,
however, I can offer some arguments that were
previously not known or were not adequately taken
into account.
Petroleum Reservoirs That Refill



hen a new oil or gas field is explored,
a n observation is routinely made of a drop in
pressure resulting from a given volume of
production. Measurement of this change is used to
estimate the total volume accessible to the wellbore.
Aggregated worldwide, these estimates of reserves
drive petroleum exploration and, to some extent, the
economic outlook for industrial nations. But it has
turned out that such estimates are nearly always
much lower than actual production over the
course of many years. The same error in
the initial estimates was also the reason for the
belief, widely publicized in the early 1970s, that the
global supply of crude oil would be exhausted
within fifteen years. This dire prediction profoundly
affected the price of petroleum-and through that, the
distribution of wealth among nations.

Under the abiogenic theory, if oil and gas are
flowing upward from deep (and thus high-pressure)
levels, their travels cannot be arrested by any
caprock, however competent the rock may be. No
rock has a significant tensile strength, so no rock
can hold down a fluid that comes up with a pressure
greater than that exerted by the weight of the
overburden. A caprock will create a concentration of
the fluids below it, but the steady flow rate will
eventually be reestablished at a value equal to the
flow rate at the deep source. The flow through a
caprock obstruction is thus like that of a river
crossed by a dam. The dam causes a lake to form
on the upstream side, but after the lake has filled, the
flow rate resumes. The same amount of water will
flow over the dam as the river carried before the
dam was built.
One might think that the upwelling flow of
hydrocarbons could itself provide the recharging
mechanism responsible for reservoir refilling. The
upwelling flow will do so to some degree. But if the
upflow were as fast as the recharging observations
indicate, then the rate at which carbon is delivered
into the atmosphere would be much higher than
atmospheric observations allow. There is, however,
a no the r process that can cause a much faster
refilling without driving more carbon up into the
atmosphere.

As already noted, rock that contains a fluid of
lesser density in its pores will inevitably set up a
pore pressure regime in which the fluid pressure
defines stacked domains, each separated from the
one below by a layer of crushed rock of very low
porosity and permeability. If oil and gas have indeed
come up from below, we can expect a vertical series
o f deeper reservoirs to be stacked below the
producing field. If, now, the uppermost domain has
its fluid pressure decreased by production of oil or
gas, then the pressure differential across the
crushed layer of low permeability will automatically
increase. Transport of fluid through that layer will
therefore accelerate. The top field will be
replenished at a rate given by the leakage from
below, when the delicate pressure balance between
rock and fluid has been changed. The top field will
be drawing on the deeper reserves that have not
been accessed directly. In the course of time, at a
slow rate given by creep deformation in the rock, the
stepwise pressure pattern will adjust its levels to the
new pressure situation. In other words, without
drilling any deeper, we can nevertheless tap into the
deeper reserves that may well be much larger
than the reservoir under production. The mean
rate of outflow from the deepest source of the
hydrocarbons will not have increased; rather, more of
the fluids that already exist at intermediate
depths will have become accessible.

The phenomenon of petroleum reservoirs that
seem to refill themselves is widely reported, notably
in the Middle East and along the U.S. Gulf Coast.4 I
regard these occurrences as strong evidence for the
deepearth gas theory.
Clues in the Carbonate Record
he surface and subsurface sediments on
the earth contain approximately one hundred times
as much of the element carbon as would have been
derived from the grinding up of the basement rocks
that contributed to the sediments. The surface is
thus enormously enriched in carbon. This
enrichment requires an explanation.

The total quantity of carbon contained in the
sediments and on the surface is estimated to
average about 200 tons for each square meter of the
earth's surface area. One-fifth of all this carbon is in
unoxidized form, including various grades of coal,
crude oils, kerogen (carbonaceous compounds
diffusely distributed in the rocks), and natural gas,
either as free gas or in the form of methane
hydrate ices. In addition there is the thin veneer of
living and not-yet-decomposed biological material.
This latter category-in my opinion the only
demonstrably biological componentrepresents only
a very small fraction of the total unoxidized carbon.

The other four-fifths of the carbon is in oxidized
form, mostly limestone (calcium carbonate, or
CaCO3) and dolomite (a blend of calcium and
magnesium carbonate).5 Much of this carbonate
was deposited in oceans, having derived the carbon
from the atmospheric-oceanic pool of CO2.
Carbonate precipitates naturally out of the water
column from dissolved carbon dioxide and calcium
or magnesium oxides. It can also be precipitated out
of the water biologically, by organisms that build
carbonate shells or skeletons.

One attempt at an explanation of this large excess
of carbon at the surface and in the sediments was to
suppose that in the early days of planetary accretion,
the earth acquired a huge atmosphere of carbon
dioxide, which was then turned into carbonate
rocks. Later, subduction of some of the carbonates
carried along the ocean floor and into the
plunging boundaries of tectonic plates would
transport the rocks to depths at which the
carbonates would dissociate. Carbon dioxide
would be released, and it would be returned to the
atmosphere in volcanic eruptions. A fairly steady
rate of this carbon flow, c yc l i ng between
deposition as carbonate and release as carbon
dioxide, was proposed to account for a
continuous supply of atmospheric carbon
dioxide over geological time, at least over the last
well-documented two billion years. (Earlier times do
not offer useful data, except to indicate that some
carbonate rocks did indeed exist more than three
billion years ago.)

According to this explanation of the earth's
near- surface enrichment in carbon, the initial
blanket of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere
would have to have been very substantial. The
figure implied by the mass of carbonate rock
mentioned would require a mass of carbon dioxide
in the early atmosphere eighty times greater than
the whole of our present atmosphere and about
as massive as that of our sister planet, Venus. In
contrast, today's proportion of carbon dioxide in
the earth's atmosphere is only
3.5 parts per ten thousand, by volume.

However, there is good reason to believe that the
early earth did not acquire much material in the form
of gases, because there is a very low abundance of
gases such as neon, non-radiogenic argon, krypton,
a nd xenon in the atmosphere today. No physical
process could have sorted out these inert gases
from the solar system's gaseous mix, where they are
known to be considerably more abundant. And
because all these inert gases are heavy atoms,
they would not have escaped the earth's
gravity and drifted off into space at a greater
rate than other gaseous elements. The only
sound explanation, in my view, is that
atmospheric gases have derived
mainly from outgassing of volatiles derived at depth
from buried solid materials-not from an initial large
atmosphere acquired at the earth's formation or by
later capture of gases from space.

The theory that the earth started out with a
massive CO2 atmosphere fails in yet another way.
The pattern of carbonate rock deposition through
geological time does not support it. Rather than a
skewing of carbonate deposition to earlier times, the
sedimentary record shows a rather continuous
accumulation of such oxidized carbon, as well as
unoxidized carbon, over the last two billion years-
which is the period of time over which the
sedimentary record is usefully intact. Indeed, the total
carbon excess of the surface layers is clearly shown
to have been increasing since early times. Recycling
cannot account for that. Rather, a continuous
addition drawn from sources upwelling from within
the earth must be held responsible.

Strangely, although most of the oxidized
carbon that is in the carbonate deposits is derived
from the atmospheric-oceanic pool of carbon
dioxide, the present content of carbon in this pool
represents only about one part in 740 of the
known deposited amounts (using the estimated total
deposited carbon over the course of two
billion years and the measured CO2 content of
atmosphere and oceans). 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 constant to
keep plants alive?

If outgassing of carbon-containing volatiles from
the depths of the earth were responsible, what mean
rate of outflow would be implied? Using the figures
presented above, this global average rate of
outgassing would have to be sufficient to replace the
amount equal to the present atmospheric-oceanic
content of carbon dioxide every 2.7 million years. In
other words, the carbon must have been replaced in
those surface reservoirs 740 times in two billion
years.

As already mentioned, the chemistry of meteorites
indicates that carbonates or other forms of oxidized
carbon were not common constituents of the
materials that formed the solid planets. Most of the
carbon was initially in unoxidized form, primarily as
hydrocarbons. The evidence from deep boreholes
that are not too close to active volcanic regions
shows, in accordance with the meteorite evidence,
that hydrocarbons are the dominant carbon-bearing
fluids there. At still deeper levels, where the pressure
is so great that diamonds are the stable form of
carbon, unoxidized carbon again evidently
dominates and forms these crystals of pure carbon.
(Chapter 7 will further explain.)

Some fraction of these upwelling carbon fluids,
starting out largely in the form of CH4 and other light
hydrocarbon molecules, will be oxidized during the
ascent. The oxygen availability from the rocks, the
temperature and pressure along the pathways of
flow, and the action of subsurface microbial life will
determine the ratio of methane to carbon dioxide
emerging from the ground in any one region. Any
methane that reaches the atmosphere without being
oxidized along the way would quickly be oxidized to
carbon dioxide in the oxygen-rich atmosphere and
there join the pool of atmospheric-oceanic CO2.
What fraction of all the upwelling carbon volatiles
would be delivered to the atmosphere as methane,
and what fraction as carbon dioxide? The carbon
dioxide coming from volcanoes is well studied,
whereas the large quantities of methane that emerge
from non-volcanic ground go mostly unnoticed. The
(superficial) impression created by this is that
carbon dioxide is the principal source of the surface
carbon excess, and that it is also the main carbon-
bearing gas in the ground.

An analysis of the isotopes of carbon, however,
reveals an error in this dominant view. The study of
the isotopes of carbon is a large and complex field. I
will mention here only one aspect that bears directly
on the subject under discussion, but even that is
necessarily rather technical. It has to be addressed
because there has been much debate about its
interpretation and significance. (Readers not
inclined to absorb this level of detail could skip to
page 68.)

Natural carbon has two stable isotopes: carbon-
12 (C-12), which has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, and
C-13, which has 6 protons and 7 neutrons. In
earth materials, about one in a hundred carbon
atoms is the heavy isotope, C-13; the rest are
C-12. No chemical action can change one of
these stable isotopes into the other. The ratio
that is seen is inherited from the nuclear
processes in stars that assembled this carbon. All
that can happen on and within the earth (leaving
aside nuclear reactors) are selection processes-
isotopic fractionation-that favor t h e movement of
one or the other isotope. The chemical
reactions of the two isotopes are closely similar,
and no significant chemical fractionation can be
expected. The most significant difference
between them that could cause fractionation is the
difference in their masses, which brings about a
difference in the velocity of their thermal motion. This
will cause the two molecules to move at different
speeds in circumstances in which the flow speed is
influenced by the thermal motion speed, such as in
molecular diffusion through a finely porous material.
In such flows, a marked fractionation can be
expected in many cases.

For a light molecule such as methane, isotopic
fractionation would be an important effect. Methane
has a molecular mass of 16 units when made from
the light isotope of carbon, a mass of 17 units
when made from the heavy. Diffusion speeds
would be 3 percent faster for the light
molecules. Thus if a stream of methane were
to flow over a semipermeable membrane, we
might expect that on the other side of this
membrane the proportion of
light methane would be enhanced, quite possibly by
3 percent.

If the carbon isotopes were contained in
molecules of carbon dioxide rather than methane,
isotopic fractionation would still occur, but it would
be less pronounced-only 1 percent-because the
molecular mass units would be 44 against 45 for the
two isotopes of carbon. The proportions of the two
carbon isotopes in carbon dioxide sampled in the air
or water are virtually the same the world over. This
has been taken to mean that the fluid reservoirs on
the earth's surface are supplied with carbon dioxide
from a single source of that particular isotopic ratio.
But this does not follow at all. Any carbon gas that
enters the atmosphere is globally mixed in a short
time compared with the time taken for it to be fixed
into a solid. It is therefore just the global average of
the isotopic contributions from the two carbon gases
that this single measured value represents. Both
methane and CO2 may have contributed, with
varying isotopic ratios.

To understand the importance of carbon isotope
data for the deepearth gas theory, we must now turn
to the isotopic ratios. All later stages in the food
chain of the surface biosphere carry through the
same ratio of light to heavy carbon as appears in the
photosynthesi zers. Plants and algae are invariably
deficient in C-13, compared with the proportion
maintained in the atmosphere. Photosynthesizers
select in favor of the lighter isotope, C-12. When this
fact was first discovered, the process by which life
fractionated carbon isotopes was unknown.
Because photosynthesizers everywhere performed
the same trick of fractionation, the opinion
developed that life alone was responsible for C-13
deficiencies anywhere in the rock record.

We now know that the way life achieves this
isotopic fractionation is through passive diffusion,
not active mediation and control. The lighter C-12
passes more readily through the pores of
semipermeable membranes that are a part of the
equipment of photosynthesizers. Thus any process
by which a carbon-bearing molecule passively
diffuses through a porous mass-whether that mass
be living substance or nonliving-should result in
fractionation. Might geological processes produce
such fractionation?

Yes. Upwelling methane would be subject to
fractionation wherever it passes through a wet spot
in the rocks or a particularly tight network of pores.
Indeed, very large factors of fractionation can be
obtained by multiply stacked diffusion systems,
which may easily be encountered during the upward
journey of hydrocarbons originating at great depth.
Such an extended process of fractionation would
account for the extreme values of C-13 deficiencies
recorded for hydrocarbons sampled in some
locations-greater values than have been reported in
plants anywhere. Nevertheless, the interpretation that
only biology could produce significant fractionation
has been adopted so overwhelmingly that whenever
the light carbon isotope is found to be favored in a
subsurface solid or fluid, life is unquestioningly held
responsible.'

Geochemical analysis of samples of natural gas
drawn up from the earth's crust everywhere in the
world shows that over 99 percent of the hydrocarbon
gases are enriched in the lighter isotope of carbon,
compared with the pool of carbon isotopes
contained in the atmosphere and oceans, although
the spread in enrichment values is rather wide. This
fact has been used to support the biogenic theory of
t he formation of hydrocarbons. But the abiogenic
theory would also offer a satisfactory explanation.
Methane molecules bearing the heavier isotope of
carbon would ascend more slowly through the rock
tha n would molecules bearing the lighter isotope.
Diffusion from pore to pore would be slowed. The
longer transit time would subject those heavier
molecules to more opportunities for oxidation. The
carbon component of many of those heavy methane
molecules would thus oxidize into carbon dioxide,
which would continue the ascent. Carbon dioxide
emanating from the earth is, in fact, enriched in the
heavy isotope compared with hydrocarbons. To test
this explanation, however, would require far more
accurate data-not only on the isotopic differences
between methane and carbon dioxide outgassing
but also on the relative quantities of each released
into the atmosphere. Here the ratio of methane to
carbon dioxide outgassing would become important.

Both the biogenic theory and the abiogenic theory
of the formation of hydrocarbons can thus explain the
isotopic signature of hydrocarbons found within the
earth's crust. But I maintain that only the abiogenic
theory can satisfactorily account for the carbon
isotope composition of the carbonates that
constitute the major component of the earth's
inventory of surface carbon. To grapple with this
issue, a bit of background is first required.

In the earth sciences, precise measurements of
small variations in the carbon isotope ratio are used
to make deductions about the history of carbon
materials bound in the rocks. These measurements
are generally reported as the deficit (negative) or the
excess (positive) of C-13, relative to a standard
carbonate rock selected as a typical marine
carbonate. The results are generally plotted as
departures from this standard, in parts per thousand.
It is also important to know that carbonate rock that
is laid down in the oceans bears about the same
carbon isotope signature as the atmospheric-
oceanic pool of CO2 at the time of its deposition.
Little fractionation occurs during physical
precipitation of carbonates. Little fractionation
occurs even when a limestone is built largely from
the calcium carbonate shells and skeletons
manufactured by life. This is because living
organisms precipitate carbonate from the
surrounding water for their own uses; they do not
extrude carbonate through cell membranes. Thus
there is no diffusion involved.
Under the biogenic theory, the entire inventory of
crude oil, natural gas, coal, and kerogen, as well as
methane hydrates, would constitute a removal of
carbon from atmospheric CO2. Such deposits have
increased over geological time and constitute an
ongoing process. The carbon laid down by
vegetation would be deficient in C-13 compared
with the atmospheric CO2 from which it was
thought to have derived, and a cumulative shift in
favor of the heavy isotope of this atmospheric CO2
would result. Because the oceanic carbonate
rocks got their carbon from this C021 the
carbonate record should show a gradual increase
in the proportion of C-13. Given the quantities
estimated for the deposits and their isotopic ratios,
this effect should be sufficiently large to be
observed in carbonates laid down over geological
time.

But no such effect is seen. The carbonate
deposits in fact show a small range of the isotopic
ratio, which has stayed remarkably constant from
early Archean times to the present.7 The biogenic
theory fails to account for this fact. This imbalance
could not be redressed by the recycling of the
unoxidized carbon deposits; these would largely turn
into insoluble and heat-resistant elemental carbon.

On the basis of the abiogenic theory we would
consider most of the unoxidized carbon deposits in
the crust as derived from upwelling hydrocarbons,
not from any sediments coming from the
atmosphere. Unoxidized carbon deposits
could therefore have no effect on the isotope
ratio of atmospheric CO2. The fractionated
carbon of the plants would all be returned to the
atmosphere in the decomposition process of
surface life, so fractionation by living cells
would not affect the average isotopic composition
of the atmosphere.

The form in which carbon is delivered to the
atmosphere, oxidized or unoxidized, also has an
important effect on the quantity of oxygen available
to the atmosphere.'
Another class of carbonates exists-one that
certainly did not derive from atmospheric carbon
dioxide. These are the crack-filling carbonates,
therefore called cements, that are found in
many r o c k s . Carbonate cements are
common in petroleum-bearing areas. In fact, by
making the rock above a reservoir less permeable,
they may play a significant role in retaining
hydrocarbon pools large enough for commercial
exploitation.

Three independent attributes set carbonate
cements apart from the bulk of marine carbonates.
First, they are crack-filling and not layered. Second,
they are more abundant in petroleum-bearing areas.
Third, they show a far greater spread of the isotopic
ratio than do any other carbonates (Figures 4.1 and
4.2).

I attribute the wide isotopic spread of the carbon
in carbonate cements to the spread in the isotopic
ratios of the upstreaming methane from which the
cements derive. Methane, because of the relatively
great difference in mass between its two isotopic
forms, would be expected to suffer much isotopic
selection as it flows through water or tight spots in
the rocks. Some of the upstreaming methane
oxidizes in the rocks. The carbon dioxide so created
then reacts readily with calcium oxide present in the
same rocks, forming carbonate. That carbonate
reflects the isotopic variant that the methane brought
in.

Whenever I discuss the large scatter of the
isotopic ratio seen in the carbonate cements and
offer my explanation drawn from the deepearth gas
theory, I can expect to be confronted with statements
such as "You are not aware that this must be due to
a mixture of two different sources of methane in all
the regions you investigated." But there are
hundreds of examples drawn from core samples of
oil wells, from carbonate deposits on the ocean floor
that overlie gas production areas, and of course
from our wells in Sweden. Would they all have
acqui red gases in comparable amounts from two
different sources, one of them being biogenic?
Would there not be many locations where only one
source and not another had contributed? How would
biogenic methane have made its way down 500
meters (or indeed, six kilometers) into the granite of
Sweden, starting from a surface that had a
sedimentary cover barely sufficient to hide the
bedrock?














Figure 4.1 The wide distribution of carbon
isotopic ratios in methane from all natural
sources. Note that the range of atmospheric
CO2 is small, as it must be because all diverse
contributions are quickly mixed globally in the
atmosphere. The oceanic carbonates that
derived their carbon from the atmospheric CO2
show a similarly small range. SOURCE: Thomas
Gold, 1987, Power from the Earth (original
compilation from values given in various
textbooks).
Geological fractionation of methane obtained
through a difference of diffusion speeds is not an
outlandish speculation on my part. Such a process is
employed on a large scale in industry, for example,
in the processing of uranium for use in bombs or
nuclear reactors. In industrial processes,
fractionation is often used in many successive
stages, and very large fractionation effects can thus
be obtained. In the less well organized
circumstances of porous rocks, the same
fractionation effects take place with lower efficiency.

The transport of a gas through rock happens in
two types of flow. First, there is a bulk stream that
flows through connected pathways created and held
open by the gases derived from deeper and
higherpressure levels. The flow speed in the bulk
stream is shared by all the molecules of gas,
regardless of isotopic content. That flow speed is
determined by pressure gradients and viscous
friction within the rock. The second type of flow is
due to diffusion of the gas into a multitude of
capillary pore spaces, often water-filled. There,
speed is given by the individual motions of the
molecules, and there fractionation will occur. The
methane that reaches the atmosphere from deep
levels and through long pathways, by which it will
have suffered diverse amounts but large values of
fractionation, emerges with all the signs of this
fractionation removed as soon as atmospheric
mixing blends it into the worldwide reservoir. The
constancy of the atmospheric ratio of carbon
isotopes everywhere and through time thus does not
mean that fractionation of hydrocarbons was absent
in all the individual outflow areas; it means only that
the averages for the entire earth and for periods of
millions of years were closely similar.















Figure 4.2 The wide distribution of the isotopic
ratios in carbonate cements in four shallow (less
than 600 meters deep) boreholes in the impact
formation of the Siljan Ring in central Sweden.
Note the large changes seen over distances of a
few tens of meters only. Gravberg is in the area
of the first deep drilling that was carried out in the
S i l j a n Ring. In contrast, marine-layered
carbonates would almost all lie on the vertical
axis between -4 and +4.
The isotopic evidence must be considered in any
discussion of carbonate genesis. The only
explanation that will avert the conclusion that the
proportion of the heavy isotope in marine deposits of
carbonates must increase through time would be
that most of the deposits of unoxidized carbon in the
ground (oil, gas, coal, and hydrates) did not derive
from the debris of photosynthetic surface life. Rather,
they must have derived from unoxidized carbon that
came up from depth. This explanation will be
coupled with the conclusion that outgassing of the
primordial complement of carbon, mainly in the
reduced form of methane, has occurred at a
reasonably steady pace. Any methane that makes
its way up through the rocks and to the surface would
in any case be oxidized in the atmosphere to carbon
dioxide, and we could no longer distinguish it from
gas that had entered the atmosphere already in fully
oxidized form.

In sum, the technical information and arguments in
this section lead, in my view, to a straightforward
general conclusion: The volumes, ages, and isotope
ratios of crustal carbonates represent important
evidence in favor of the view that hydrocarbons were
primordial constituents of the earth, that they remain
still, and that they continuously upwell into the outer
crust, finally emerging, oxidizing, and mixing in the
atmosphere.
The Association of Helium
with Hydrocarbons



here is a very strong association of
heli um with hydrocarbons. This association is so
strong that in the commercial search for
hydrocarbons, helium sniffing along the surface has
been found useful. Very sensitive helium detectors
now exist. They were first employed for the
detection of uranium deposits underground, which
were thought to be major sources of helium. That
search was not successful. But helium sniffing did
prove helpful in detecting oil and gas fields.

The association of helium with hydrocarbons is
probably the most striking fact that the biogenic
theoryfails to account for, and therefore it has been
for me of the greatest interest.

Where does that helium come from, and why is it
so strongly associated with hydrocarbons? In the
rocks, helium is produced mainly in the radioactive
decay of uranium and thorium. Regional patterns of
helium abundance have been observed in which the
present quantities of helium are far higher than the
sediments could ever have produced from the total
of their radioactive components. In these regions of
heli um abundance, the mixture of gases (including
hydrocarbons and nitrogen) within and emerging
from the earth's crust tends to be remarkably
similar over very large geographical areas,
spanning even very different geological
provinces. The helium therefore must certainly
have come from below the layers of sedimentary
rock, and it must have arrived there already in
regionally well-defined mixing ratios with methane
and nitrogen, so that the different fields of the
region could all be filled with the same or a
closely similar mix. Only a mix that had entered the
sedi ment and its individual gas fields from below
could achieve that effect.

Any chemical or biological cause of this
enrichment can be ruled out for the chemically inert
helium, which does not establish chemical
bonds with any element. No chemical process-
biological or nonbiological-can cause helium to be
gathered up from a low concentration and
brought to a higher one. Only variations in the
concentrations of the parent radioactive elements,
and variations in the length of the pathway through
the rocks from which the helium has been swept,
could explain the great regional differences in
observed helium concentrations. Where helium
concentrations have varied widely from one
location to another, such as by factors of a
hundred or more, the length of the pathway
through which the carrier gas has swept is likely to
have been the dominant variant.

Beginning in about 1979, I began working with the
vast accumulation of helium data already available in
order to find a reasonable explanation for the
regional patterns. Perhaps the helium enrichment
data could serve as a good proxy for the depth from
which its fluid hydrocarbon carrier began the upward
journey. The deeper the source of hydrocarbons, the
greater the total length of pore spaces through which
hydrocarbons must flow before reaching the outer
crust and surface. And the more rock this fluid must
pass, the more opportunity is available for gathering
radioactively derived helium atoms along the way.
The helium concentration in a gas can thus be used
as a rough indication of the depth from which this
gas has come. Though approximate, this calculation
should nevertheless enable us to distinguish
between a putative biogenic source at a depth of,
say, five kilometers and an abiogenic source at 150
kilometers. A depth-related variant this large should
swamp the much weaker variations attributable to
differences in the concentrations of radioactive
elements in the rocks encountered along the path of
escape.
Another line of support for this depth hypothesis is
the extent of surface area over which particular gas
mixes emerge. The surface area of emergence may
reveal the relationship of the depths in which various
gases were liberated. A vast geographical spread of
an identifiable mix means that those gases must
have arisen from a very deep level. Another mix that
draws a smaller patch on the surface, but within the
area of the first, must have come from a shallower
level. When I and a colleague (Marshall
Held) analyzed these kinds of data, which had
already been recorded for petroleum fields in
Texas and Kansas, we discovered that of all
the volatile elements or compounds, nitrogen in
the form of N2 and helium frequently would have
derived from the deepest levels, natural gas
(methane) from the next deepest, and oil with
various admixtures of hydrocarbon gases from
the next. But in any event, all would come from
levels far deeper than the crustal sedi- ments.9

Helium enrichment is rarely found in sedimentary
rock in the absence of larger amounts of
hydrocarbons or nitrogen. Ten percent helium in
methane-nitrogen gases is the highest concentration
that has been encountered. For helium to be
concentrated in oil- or gas-producing regions to
much higher concentrations than in the neighboring
rocks, nothing other than a mechanical pumping
action can be invoked. No chemical action is
possible for the inert helium. But why would any
pumping action drive helium specifically into
petroleum-bearing areas? The association is so
strong that all the world's commercial production of
helium comes from oil and gas wells, and the
concentration of helium is often greater by a factor of
a hundred in the oil-bearing areas than in
neighboring ground. Even at the shallow depths of
farmers' water wells, measurements of helium and
methane concentrations show a close relationship.
Measurements of this kind have been carried out in
hundreds of data-gathering points in several parts of
the globe (Figure 4.3). The relationship cannot be
doubted.10

I cannot think of any pumping action that would
drive helium from surrounding regions horizontally
just toward a hydrocarbon-rich area. The only action I
could understand that would bring helium into the
hydrocarbon areas would be the diffusely produced
helium in the rocks being swept up over a great
interval of depth by a gas that itself contributed to the
hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Because helium derives mainly from ongoing
radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, it is only
very diffusely distributed in the rocks. By itself,
radioactively produced helium could not
create pressures sufficient to open pore
spaces in the rocks to allow any bulk flow to
occur. Molecular diffusion of helium through the
rocks would be the only mechanism for its ascent.
Although molecular diffusion of helium would be
faster than that of any other gas, it would
nevertheless be much slower than bulk
transportation. Helium transport therefore must be
driven by another and much more abundant gas
that provides its own motive force both for upward
streaming and for generating pressure-induced pore
spaces and fissures along the way. It is the driving
force of this other gas that provides the required
pumping action that concentrates helium in
hydrocarbon reservoirs near the surface. If that other
gas is a hydrocarbon, it will of course pump the
helium it has picked up into the regions that we
identify, at shallower levels, as hydrocarbon-bearing.
This, then, would account for the association of
hydrocarbons with helium.

The test of the hypothesis that hydrocarbon
fluids serve as the upward carrier of helium would
be this: If helium could flow without a carrier
fluid, there should be many locations where
amounts of helium had accumulated that were
similar to the amounts of helium in some gas
fields; but in the absence of methane or nitrogen,
these accumulations would be pure helium fields.
Given the extent of geological
exploration, many such fields should have been
discovered by now; they would be of great value.
Their absence thus supports the carriergas concept
of helium transport.


Figure 4.3 Helium transport in upwelling volatiles.
This schematic shows how the deep-earth gas
theory would account for the helium association
with methane. From the deepest levels (perhaps
a b o ut 300 kilometers), helium produced by
radioactive decay is swept into the stream of
upwelling nitrogen. At a depth of perhaps 100
kilometers, designated here as the methane
domain, nitrogen and helium mix with methane,
and all three continue their journey upward.
These gases then arrive in the final fields with
mixing ratios already determined. The nitrogen-
helium ratio is constant over a much larger area,
whereas the mixing ratios with methane display
individual smaller areas within the first.
In this exploration of evidence confirming the
abiogenic theory of petroleum formation, we have
examined data pertaining to three important features
that can be directly sampled or detected in the
outer crust: the phenomenon of reservoir refilling,
isotopic and other features of the crust's vast
stores of carbonates, and the strong association
of helium with hydrocarbons.

The deep earth gas theory is indeed made
compelling by just the helium association,9-16 which
has no other explanation. An association of
hydrocarbons with specifically primordial helium
seen in many locations adds further support. 17-27

But now we have shifted the difficulty to the other
side of the argument: How did hydrocarbons
attract biological molecules if they came up from
depths that are much too great to make or even
maintain s uc h molecules? So where did the
hydrocarbons originate? If at great depth (and then
necessarily at high temperature) we can
understand why they gathered up much helium. If
they originated in the shallower sedimentary
domain we would understand the presence of
biological molecules. We seem to have a paradox
here: Two types of perfectly secure information,
but with explanations for them that conflict
with each other. The resolution of this apparent
paradox is the subject of the next chapter.
C1iapler 5






he prevailing theory among Western
scientists is that petroleum derives from the buried
and chemically transformed remains of once-living
cells. To contend, as I do, that complex
hydrocarbons were primordial constituents of solar
system debris out of which the planets formed, and
that these hydrocarbons remain in an unoxidized
state within the earth's crust and upper mantle even
today, is thus a radically contrarious view of
petroleum formation. But the problem remains: If
complex hydrocarbons found within the earth's crust
a re not the reworked remains of surface life,
why then does petroleum contain the signature of
life?

Supporters of the biogenic theory of petroleum
formation build their case on four central
observations.' First, all natural petroleum contains
admixtures of groups of molecules that are clearly
i denti fi ed as the breakdown products of complex,
but common, organic molecules synthesized by life.
These molecules, which appear to be present in
reservoirs of petroleum the world over, could not
have been built up in a non-biological process.

Second, petroleum frequently exhibits an optical
property suggestive of biological activity. When
plane-polarized light is passed through a sample of
the fluid, the light emerges with its plane of
polarization rotated. This rotation implies that
molecules that can form with either a right-handed or
a left-handed symmetry (in the same sense as we
know right-handed and left-handed screws) are not
represented by (statistically) equal numbers in
petroleum. Rather, one "hand" dominates-which is
characteristic of biological liquids, presumably
because their molecules have a common ancestry,
but this trait is absent in fluids of non-biological
origin.

Third, some petroleums are mixtures of
hydrocarbon molecules in which those with an odd
number of carbon atoms are more abundant than
those with an even number. Again, the inverse is
also found. It has been suggested that such an odd-
even effect can be understood as arising from the
breakdown of certain classes of molecules that are
common in biological substances that may have
contributed to any particular sample. As in the case
of the optical effect, no detailed explanation has
been put forward. Biology may well be involved, but
not necessarily as the source of these molecules.

Fourth, petroleum is found mostly in sedimentary
deposits and only rarely in the primary rocks of the
crust below. Even among the sediments, petroleum
favors strata that are geologically young. In many
cases, such sediments appear to be rich in tar-
like molecules known as kerogen. These molecules
are interpreted by supporters of the biogenic
view as having a biological origin, and they are
regarded as the source material for any petroleum
deposits found in the vicinity. Earth processes
are believed to convert these diffusely
distributed kerogen molecules into fluid petroleum.
Earth processes are also believed to direct the
petroleum somehow into concentrated reservoirs
within porous sedimentary rock, sometimes
concentrated by factors of 100 relative to the
distribution of kerogen, and at substantial
lateral distances from the kerogen-rich rock
considered the source. No theory of this
concentration process has been proposed.
The Deep Hot Biosphere Solution



spent years puzzling over the conflicting
evidence of petroleum formation. For reasons
explained in the previous two chapters, how could
the abiogenic theory be squared with the equally
strong evidence of biological activity? As it turned
out, the problem had become a paradox only
because arguments on both sides contained an
unrecognized hidden assumption.

There are no real paradoxes in science; the
apparent paradoxes are merely nature's polite way,
sotto voce, of informing us that our understanding is
incomplete or erroneous. With respect to the
petroleum paradox, the unrecognized assumption on
both sides of the debate was an unquestioned belief
that life can exist only at the surface of the earth.
None of us had considered that a large amount of
active microbiology could exist within the earth's
crust, down to the deepest levels to which we can
drill.

That assumption is a vestige of what I've dubbed
surface chauvinism, the belief that life is only a
surface phenomenon. If we can strip away that
assumption, we can entertain the proposition that the
biological molecules present in crude oil are not
vestiges of surface life long dead, buried, and
partially transformed. Rather they are evidence of a
thriving community of microbes living out their lives
at depth, feasting on hydrocarbons of a deep,
abiogenic origin. Once free from the
preconceptions, we can open our eyes to the
existence of a deep hot biosphere-and one of
immense proportion would be needed to account for
all the biological molecules in oils around the globe.

For some time before I recognized that the theory
of the deep hot biosphere could resolve the
petroleum paradox, I had stressed that oils traveling
up through the sediments would leach out any
biologi cal materials encountered along the way and
that such leaching would provide these fluids with
biomolecules.2 It was difficult, however, to reconcile
this process with the fact that some petroleum
re s e r vo i rs have no plausible connection with
sedimentary strata in which biological materials
might have been buried and thus have been subject
t o leaching. These problematic oils include those
from the very deepest basement rocks in which
samples of oils have been found. The solution had to
be an abiogenic origin of all petroleum and natural
gas, coupled with the extraordinary proposition that
a huge microbial biosphere existed at depth, down
to at least eight kilometers, (which is the depth at
which petroleum in the deepest boreholes has been
found). In this view, all petroleum sampled from the
ground would have supported an active microbial life
because oil is a very desirable substance for various
forms of microbiology. We see clearly that where the
temperature of the oil is low enough for microbes to
flourish, the biological markers are present.

Coupling the abiogenic, or deep-earth gas, theory
with the assumption that a deep hot biosphere exists
allowed me to interpret the petroleum-helium
association as deriving from the long pathways the
petroleum fluids had traveled from their deep origins
to the outer crust. Having originated far below the
depth limit for any biology that could have spiked it
with the biomolecules that we observe in it now,
petroleum must have traveled up without possessing
any of these molecules. Upon reaching shallower
levels, where conditions allowed biology to function,
the upwelling petroleum quickly became loaded
with the great variety of molecular species that a
vigorous microbiology could produce at such levels.

Indisputable evidence of living indigenous
microbes has been reported in oil wells at depths of
more than four kilometers, as we saw in Chapter 2. I
believe that all the depths to which our drills can
reach, and from which we therefore obtain samples
for analysis, are shallower than the transition level
below which biology cannot operate. Hence all
hydrocarbons will show this type of biological
enhancement, but for a very different reason from
that assumed by the biogenic theory. Living cells, not
just biologically derived molecules, have already
b e e n drawn up from deep wells and successfully
cultured. The deep hot biosphere is of immerse
extent, even though it is limited to pore spaces and
fissures within the rock.
Biological Molecules
in Non-Biological Petroleum

y theory of the deep hot biosphere thus
required that we acknowledge the existence of a
previously unrecognized and huge domain of life. It
was this assumption that would resolve the petro
leum paradox, but it was a very large assumption to
make. Corroborating evidence would be required
before it could be accepted. That evidence
emerged in 1984, in the form of a remarkable paper
by Guy Ourisson, Pierre Albrecht, and Michel
Rohmer, working at the University of Stras- bourg.3
Although I disagreed with the authors on their
main conclusion, that bacteria had produced the
oil and coal-(With what food? With what sources of
carbon and hydrogen?)-the quantities of microbial
materials that they reported greatly
strengthened my willingness to make the
extraordinary assumption of a rich biosphere at
substantial depth.

The authors showed that the quantity of biological
debris in petroleum was astonishingly large, even
though the proportions in petroleum were small. A
massive bacterial contamination was implied in any
case, although this was not the opinion of these
authors. The Ourisson team, rather, expressed the
conventional view that biology was essential for the
production of hydrocarbons. They did not consider
that the oils could be food for a prolific microbial life
and thereby create the association between
petroleum and biology. I responded in a
letter published in the same journal in November
1984, writing in part,

A widespread early bacterial flora may have
arisen when hydrocarbon outgassing of the earth
provided a source of chemical energy in the
surface layers of the crust where oxygen was
abundant owing to the photodissociation of water
and the loss of the hydrogen to space. Methane-
oxidizing bacteria (and possibly also oxidizers of
hyd ro g e n, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen
sulfide) may have been able to thrive in the
crustal rocks. In the course of evolution,
photosynthesis, with all its complexity, may well
have been preceded as a source of energy by
hydrocarbon outgassing. The flora the outgassing
sustained gave oil and coal its distinctive
biological imprint.'
One molecular signature of life in oils came from a
group of molecules that the Ourisson team had found
and named hopanoids. Hopanoids are slightly
oxygenated and enriched versions of the
hydrocarbon molecules known as hopanes, which
contain anywhere from about 27 to 36 atoms of
carbon arranged in contiguous rings in a single
molecule. The higher-carbon hopanoids contain the
extra carbon com ponents as a chain added onto the
linked rings. Hopanoids are prominent in all of the
numerous samples of petroleum that have
been tested for them. This includes samples
drawn from sediments of widely ranging ages and
from all over the world. And there is no
dispute that these molecules are derived from the
membranes of once- living cells.

The amount of hopanoids was huge, the authors
argued: "The global stock of hopanoids alone would
be at least 1013 or 1014 tons, more than the
estimated 1012 tons of organic carbon in all living
organisms."

Ourisson and colleagues were puzzled, however,
by the fact that whereas living trees and ferns and
algae are known to contain hopanoids at the
lower end of the carbon-number spectrum, only
bacteria5 contai n the higher-carbon molecules,
such as C35 and C36. Another interesting
molecule (a terpenoid) that the Ourisson team
found to be common in hydrocarbons is also
present in bacteria known to make their living by
oxidizing methane. The biogenic
molecules discovered in natural hydrocarbons
throughout the world can all be linked to constituents
of bacteria or archaea, and none is linked
exclusively to macroflora or fauna. There is thus no
evidence in these observations that anything
other than a substantial microbiological
contamination of oils is required to explain
all the molecules observed. And this means, in
turn, that there is no evidence that any surface
life must be invoked to explain the presence of
these biological molecules in subsurface
hydrocarbons.

One need not have waited for hopanoids,
however, to cast doubt on the biogenic theory of
petroleum formation. Robert Robinson made the
most persuasive argument more than a decade
before petroleum geology had claimed my attention.
"It cannot be too strongly emphasized," he wrote in
1963, "that petroleum does not present the
c o mp o s i ti o n picture expected from modified
biogenic products, and all the arguments from the
constituents of ancient oils fit equally as well, or
b e t t e r, with the conception of a primordial
hydrocarbon mixture to which bioproducts have been
added."'

Quite simply, it is most unlikely that any biological
debris could be degraded into hydrogen-saturated
hydrocarbons. Robinson's line of reasoning still
stands, and it remains perhaps the easiest-to-
understand and most compelling of all biochemical
arguments against the biogenic theory.

Nobody has yet synthesized crude oil or coal in
the lab from a beaker of algae or ferns. A simple
heuristic will show why such synthesis would be
extremely unlikely. To begin with, remember that
carbohydrates, proteins, and other biomolecules are
hydrated carbon chains. These biomolecules are
fundamentally hydrocarbons in which oxygen
atoms (and sometimes other elements, such as
nitrogen) ha ve been substituted for one or two
atoms of hydrogen. Biological molecules are
therefore not
saturated with hydrogen. Biological debris buried in
the earth would be quite unlikely to lose oxygen
atoms and to acquire hydrogen atoms in their stead.
If anything, slow chemical processing in geological
settings should lead to further oxygen gain and thus
further hydrogen loss. And yet a hydrogen "gain" is
precisely what we see in crude oils and their
hydrocarbon volatiles. The hydrogento-carbon ratio
is vastly higher in these materials than it is in
undegraded biological molecules. How, then, could
biological molecules somehow acquire hydrogen
atoms while, presumably, degrading into petroleum?

Consider too that in oil wells, the average
hydrogen-to-carbon ratio increases with depth,
corresponding (according to the abiogenic view) to
a hydrogen loss through time and during the upward
migration of the fluids. Yet a deeper hydrogen
reservoir would be regarded as "older" than a
shallower reservoir in the same vicinity, given the
r u l e of superposition in geology-that younger
sediments are deposited on top of older sediments.
Why, then, would the deepest deposits have the
highest ratio of hydrogen to carbon?

Equipped with the theory of the deep hot
biosphere as the solution to the petroleum paradox, I
made an estimate (published in 1992) of the
biomass that such a biosphere might support.7 Let
us begin with a presumed upper temperature limit
for life of 110C to 150C (which at considerable
depth would still be well below the boiling point of
water). This would place a depth limit for deep
biospheric life at somewhere between 5 and 10
kilometers below the surface in most areas of the
crust. The total pore space available in the land
areas of the earth down to a depth of 5 kilometers
can be estimated as 2 x 1022 cubic centimeters
(taking 3 percent porosity as an average value). If
material of the density of water fills these pore
spaces, this would represent a mass of 2 X 1016
tons. What fraction of this might be bacterial mass?
Here the calculation becomes highly speculative.
Let us estimate, rather conservatively, that bacterial
mass occupies just 1 percent, or 2 x 1014 tons, of
the total material occupying the pore spaces. In that
case, biomass originating and contained within the
deep hot biosphere would be equivalent to a layer of
living material that would be approximately 1.5
meters thick if it were spread out over all of the land
surface. This would indeed be somewhat more than
the existing flora and fauna of the surface biosphere,
and it comports with the worldwide estimate of
biological debris-hopanoids-calculated by the
Ourisson team to be present in all crude oils.

We do not, of course, know at present how to
make a realistic estimate of the subterranean mass
of material now living. But my rough estimate and
that of Ourisson and colleagues indicate that it well
could match or exceed all the living mass of the
surface biosphere.8
The Upwelling Theory
of Coal Formation

he dominant view in Western countries is
that crude oil and natural gas derive from biological
debris reworked by geological processes, as we
have seen. In contrast, the abiogenic view, coupled
with the theory of the deep hot biosphere, is that
liquid petroleum and its volatiles are not biology that
has been reworked by geology but geology that has
been reworked by biology.

The evidence we now have of biological activity in
petroleum is the cellular remains of microbes that
fed on hydrocarbons, some at a depth of perhaps
ten kilometers, where it was previously thought that
no biology could be present. This microbial activity is
not just something that happened in the remote past;
it is still going on. Oil and gas reservoirs are still
filling and still venting to the surface, and the
denizens of the deep hot biosphere are still
degrading fresh supplies of oil into carbon dioxide
and other excretory products as they live, reproduce,
and die. The abiogenic theory well accounts for
many spatial and chemical features of these
hydrocarbon reserves that the biogenic theory has
n o t been able to explain. And the biological
molecules detected in crude oils are explained by
the deep hot biosphere. Crude oil and natural gas
are thus by no means "fossil fuels," as they are often
termed. But surely I must make an exception for coal,
one would think.

No. I contend that although peat and lignite do
originate from undecomposed biological debris,
black coals do not. In my view, black coals form from
the same upwelling of deep hydrocarbons that
accumulate as crude oil and natural gas. With
coal,
however, the hydrogen component has been further
driven off, leaving behind a greatly carbon-enriched,
hydrogen-impoverished hydrocarbon. How could
coal form in this way? What empirical evidence is
there for this contention as opposed to the biogenic
theory?

Many people think that the origin of coal is
completely understood. This is not the case. What
has happened is what happens only too often in
science: An unsatisfactory explanation is accepted
because no more satisfactory explanation turns up
over a long period of time. The biogenic theory of
coal formation demands the assumptionunwarranted
in my opinion-that lands all around the globe formerly
supported vast stretches of swamp forests in which
generation upon generation of tree ferns (during the
Paleozoic) and conifers (during the Mesozoic) fell
into oxygen-depleted waters, thus preventing
decomposition. Moreover, these "coal swamps"
occupied down-warping regions, in which thousands
of feet of overburden, sometimes alternating with
swamp conditions, pressed down upon the buried
plants as the eons passed. Pressures and
temperatures prevailing at depth, given sufficient
time, would then somehow transform biological
molecules into black coal.

Early investigators of bituminous coal (beginning
in England, for example, as far back as the 1850s)
found a lot they could not explain about the
substance's composition. Because there were some
fossils in the coal, and because life on the earth is
carbon-based, a biogenic theory seemed quite
plausible and seemed the best course to pursue in
t h e absence of an alternative. Nevertheless, the
biogenic theory was at a loss to account
satisfactorily for most or all of the situations in which
coal is found.

It is indeed true that coal sometimes-though by no
m e a ns always-contains some fossils, but
those fossils themselves create a problem for the
biogenic
theory. First, why did the odd fossil retain its
structure with perfection, sometimes down to the
cellular level, when other, presumably much larger
quantities of such debris adjoining it were so
completely demolished that no structure can be
identified at all? Would it not be strange for one leaf
or twig to have its shape perfectly preserved and for
all other leaves and twigs in the same assemblage
to be turned (by high pressure) into a uniform mass
of almost pure carbon? Second, fossils are
sometimes filled almost solid with carbon without
being deformed. Every cell of the plant seems to
have been filled with the same coaly material that
forms the bulk of the coal outside the fossil. How did
the coaly material enter the structure of the fossil
without destroying it? Such coal fossils seem to be
filled with carbon in the same way that petrified wood
is filled with silica.

Silica-rich petrified wood is universally believed to
have been introduced by the flowing through of
aqueous fluids rich in dissolved silicon dioxide.
Over time, silicon dioxide-quartz-is deposited,
crystallizing in ways that conserve the cellular
structures without conserving any of the cellular
contents. Why should not the same sort of
process, involving a very different fluid, have
been at work in the formation of coal and its fossil
inclusions? The "coal" in the cells of the plant
must have entered as a fluid, and presumably
it was the same fluid that laid down the surrounding
matrix of coal.

If not only crude oil and natural gas are a gift of the
deep crust or the mantle, but coal is too, how might
coal actually form?

To begin with, simple chemistry and physics tell us
that hydrocarbons will suffer a loss of hydrogen on
their way up through the crust. Why is this so? First,
any opportunity for a stray (or microbially catalyzed)
oxygen atom to interact with a hydrocarbon fluid of
any sort will result in that fluid losing two hydrogen
atoms for every oxygen atom encountered, thus
generating water. This represents nothing more than
a drive toward chemical equilibrium. The carbon-to-
hydrogen ratio of the fluid will then rise, with
other appropriately charged atoms (such as
nitrogen and sulfur) taking the place of hydrogen in
the molecular structure or, more commonly, with
double bonds replacing single bonds in the carbon
chains or rings that must accommodate hydrogen
loss.

As we know all too well from the faults in the
engines of our cars, oxygen atoms preferentially strip
off almost every hydrogen atom in a hydrocarbon
fluid before going to work on the carbon atoms,
which are more difficult to oxidize. The result: less
than fully oxidized carbon (carbon monoxide, CO). A
sign of even less efficiency is the unoxidized black
stuff ringing the head of a spark plug drawn from the
engine of a poorly tuned car or pouring out of the
exhaust pipe of a heavily laden truck shifting gears.
This is nearly pure carbon, or soot.

Generally, the "heavier" (more carbon-rich) the
fuel, the greater the chance of incomplete
combustion. In order to convert all the carbon as well
as the hydrogen in a hydrocarbon fluid into
molecules of the highest oxidation state, sufficient
oxygen and sufficiently high temperatures must be
provided. A paraffin candle flame, for example, is hot
enough to oxidize the hydrogen, but it is not hot
enough to oxidize all the carbon. Soot is, in fact, the
intentional product of the carbon-black industry,
which incompletely burns natural gas in a low-
oxygen, lowtemperature environment in order to
produce soot that can be sold as printer's ink.

Oxidation is not the only cause of hydrogen loss
on the way up from the earth's depths. Complex
hydrocarbons forged at depth would be unstable at
near-surface pressures even if they would be stable
at the pressures that prevail at their point of origin in
the upper mantle, perhaps 200 or 300 kilometers
beneath the earth's surface. In the upper rocks, and
away from volcanic influences, temperatures are too
cold to break the molecules apart forcibly, but there
will nevertheless be a gradual dissociation of
hydrogen from the carbon, as the hydrocarbon mix
adjusts gradually to the lower pressures of shallow
depths.

The existence of diamonds-crystals of pure
carbon-gives us several very significant items of
information about the circumstances at depths of
more than 100 kilometers. (This important topic will
be examined in more detail in Chapter 7.) The
pressure necessary for carbon to adopt this
crystallographic form has been reliably determined
t o be 35 to 40 kilobar (1 kilobar is equal to 1000
times the atmospheric pressure). Because the
pressure at any depth cannot exceed the value given
by the overburden weight of rock, diamond formation
could not occur at depths less than 100 to 150
kilometers. By studying diamonds, we can thus
learn something of the conditions at such great
depths.

First, a process has to be at work that will
concentrate high-purity carbon. Only a flow of a liquid
that carries carbon can do this. Pore spaces must
exist down there, and fluids must flow through them
that can shed pure carbon. Second, small impurities
that exist in some diamonds, in the form of inclusions
of fluids at a pressure similar to that needed for the
formation of diamonds, can be considered samples
of fluids that occur at such depths. Among those are
methane, other light hydrocarbons, and CO2. This
answers the question of the depth at which some
unoxidized carbon compounds are stable in the
earth: It is at least 100 kilometers but may be much
more. I presume that the dissociation of some
hydrocarbons is the origin of the clean carbon of the
diamonds. Even diamonds made in a pressure-
temperature domain where they are stable become
unstable at the low surface pressures. Diamonds are
not forever, but they are for long enough, only
because they are supercooled and do not have the
energy to change their crystal configuration to the
low-pressure form, which is graphite. Similarly, most
hydrocarbon molecules will enter an unstable
domain as they rise toward the surface.

To get a sense of how hydrocarbons
spontaneously reconfigure their molecular mix under
a substantial change of pressure and temperature, I
directed a graduate student to study chemical
changes in a sample of propane (C3H8) subjected
to a simulated depth environment of 475C
temperature and 4000 atmospheres pressure,
which corresponds to a depth of about 10
kilometers in much of the earth's crust. After only
six hours, the sample had rearranged itself into a
mix ranging from C, to C51 maintaining the input
ratio of carbon to hydrogen (Figure 5.1). This
shows that hydrocarbon molecules can be
assembled without the intervention of life; it also
shows that the ratio of the vari ous light hydrocarbon
molecules seen in oil and gas wells is determined
by the pressure-temperature relation along the
path of the ascent.

Sequential loss of hydrogen is the primary reason
why so many petroleum fields are configured in a
layer-cake fashion: Vast methane deposits at the
greatest depth, light oils higher up, and the heaviest
oils on top (though each pocket may be capped with
some amount of methane). In some fields, the most
carbon-rich and topmost hydrocarbon is not crude
oil; crude oil is not always the end of the sequence.
Rather, above the oil layers may be black coal. The
blacker the coal (from bituminous to anthracite), the
greater the loss of hydrogen and the greater the
resulting carbon-to-hydrogen ratio.













Figure 5.1 Spontaneous modification of
hydrocarbons under a change of heat and
pressure. In this experiment a nearly pure
quantity of propane (C3), sealed in a gold-lined
vessel, was subjected for 6 hours to a
temperature of 475C and a pressure of 4000
atmospheres (the latter simulating a depth of
about 10 kilometers). Under those conditions,
some of the propane spontaneously
reconfigured into both lighter and heavier
hydrocarbons, thereby maintaining the hydrogen-
to-carbon ratio in this closed system. The final
mix ranged from methane (C,) to pentane (C5).
SOURCE: Thomas S. Zemanian, William B.
Streett, and John A. Zoliweg, 1987,
"Thermodynamic calculations, experiments, and
the origin of petroleum" (unpublished results). A
similar but more complicated experiment is
reported in Thomas Gold et al.,
1986,
"Experimental study of the reaction of methane
with petroleum hydrocarbons in geological
conditions," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
50: 2411-18.
What about the biological molecules detected in
coal? The presence in coal of the same sorts of
hopanoids-molecules attributable to bacteria-that
are found in crude oil is strong evidence that the
s a m e microbes are dining or have dined on
hydrocarbons in coal layers as in oil reservoirs
(Figure 5.2). Under the biogenic theory, however, the
strong similarity in hopanoid species in coals and
oils is difficult to explain.' This is because
proponents of the biogenic theory regard coal as the
altered remains of land plants and oil as the altered
remains of marine biological debris, yet it
would seem improbable for nearly
the same microbiological material to be found in
both. If coal was an end product of oil, then this
coincidence would be explained.

Wherever microbiology has played a catalyzing
role in the conversion of a hydrogen-rich
hydrocarbon into a hydrogen-poor hydrocarbon, the
product can, to some extent, be considered a
biological creation-but one produced by an
underground ecology feeding on abiogenic
petroleum fluids. In the genesis of coal, however, it is
unclear whether and to what extent microbes of the
deep biosphere are involved. The process of
hydrogen loss may or may not be assisted by
microbial action. Either way, positive feedback can
be at work once the first atoms of pure carbon are
generated. A deposit of solid carbon acts as a
catalyst for further deposition of carbon from
methane or other hydrocarbons. Where other
circumstances, such as temperature and pressure,
would come near to causing dissociation and
subsequent deposition of carbon, the presence of
some carbon will initiate the process. This
means that in an area of upstreaming
hydrocarbons, there will be a tendency for carbon
deposits to grow to great concentrations, because
their very presence is
instrumental in laying down more of the same
stuff.

I came to know this well from an experiment
carried out in my laboratory. We began with a
transparent tube of fused quartz, partially sur
rounded by an intense electric heater, but
leaving space to see the interior. Methane
was blown through the tube as the temperature
rose. At around
800C, a black speck suddenly appeared on the
inside wall, and within a fraction of a second a black
streak developed, starting from the initial point and
widening as a triangle in the downstream direction.
Significantly, carbon did not appear in a scattered
pattern inside the tube. Rather, once the first speck
had been generated, all subsequent deposition
created a single, expanding mass; carbon was
deposited very quickly after the first grain appeared.

Figure 5.2 Similarity in hopanoid (biological)
molecules detected in a coal sample and an oil
sample. The upper chromatogram was obtained
from a Lorraine (France) coal residing in strata
dated at about 300 million years. The lower
chromatogram comes from a heavy crude oil that
is found in strata of the Aquitaine Basin, also in
France, dated at about 150 million years.
Comparing these chromatograms shows that
coal and oil had a similar complement of
bacteria, depositing the unusual form of the
biological debris. The judgments of the ages are
those for the containing rock, whereas the
carbon may have been laid down later.
SOURCE: Guy Ourisson, Pierre Albrecht, and
Michel Rohmer, 1984, "The microbial origin of
fossil fuels," Scientific American 251(2): 44-51.
In conclusion, I believe that coal may be formed by
both abiotic and biotic processes.
What distinguishes this theory from traditional
theory is that coal is postulated to be derived
from a source upwelli ng from the depths rather
than a deposit sinking from the surface. We might
therefore refer to this as the upwelling theory. The
carbon has entered from below as a carbon-
bearing fluid such as methane, butane or
propane, and thus it could penetrate into the
cells of any plant fossils that were present in the
flow path. After that, a continual loss of hydrogen
would gradually bring it closer to the
consistency we call coal. Black, hard coal is a
product of entirely subsurface processes; it has
nothing to do with the surface biosphere. It has
nothing at all to do with photosynthesis. Such coal is
not the stored energy of the sun.
Evidence for the Upwelling Theory



vidence in favor of this upwelling theory of
coal formation is various and, in my view,
compelling. Perhaps the strongest refutation of the
traditional theory of coal formation can be found in
t h e paucity of mineral ash in most black coals.
Some coal seams are more than 10 meters thick,
yet the mineral content may be as low as 4 percent.
The bulk of the material is just carbon, with a little
hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur mixed in various
compounds. For a swamp to lay down enough
carbon to produce such a seam, it would need to
have grown to a depth of more than 300 meters,
with a mineral content in that volume of less than 1
percent. No such swamps exist today, and even if
they

once existed, it seems unlikely that plants would
grow in such circumstances.

The ratio of minerals to carbon in any present-day
accumulation of plant debris is a very much
higher one, and accumulations of the quantities of
biomass carbon necessary to account for major
coal seams a r e not found anywhere. There is
no reason to invoke an environmental process
(terrestrial coal formation) and a breadth of
suitable surface environment (vast forested
swamps) that have no analogs in today's world.
A more parsimonious theory surely is in order,
especially inasmuch as we understand that a large
quantity of carbon must have been delivered to the
surface over geological time.

The upwelling theory, in contrast, can account for
the low mineral content of coal, and it avoids the
need to posit a type and scale of environment that
once occurred but exists no longer. I believe that
substantial coal formation is not just a thing of the
past. It is happening today. We do not recognize it
simply because coal is forming largely as
incremental additions to existing coal deposits. Not
only the oil and gas fields are recharging but the coal
deposits also, only at a rate too slow for us to
recognize.

The upwelling theory well suits the dimensions of
massive coal deposits and explains the
small amount of mineral ash contained therein.
Perhaps perfectly "ordinary" biological deposits
in a sedimentary layer of a helpful porosity, with
normal admixtures of minerals, would act as a
starter. Some of the upstreaming
hydrocarbons would be dissociated there; the
fossils in that rock would be filled with carbon, and
as more carbon accumulated, it would stimulate
further accumulations of carbon. In the end, the
quantities of carbon attributable to the original
plant material may be an insignificant fraction,
and the carbonto-mineral ratio may have
reached values that never occur in surface
vegetation. The commonly occurring vertical
stacking of coal seams then merely attests to the
area being one in which hydrocarbon fluids have
been outgassing over extended periods and in
which the circumstances have been mildly in favor of
dissociation and carbon deposition. This also
accounts for another observation much researched
i n recent times: Coal often seems to produce large
and commercially valu able quantities of methane
gas, especially when the ground-water pressure
surrounding a coal seam is lowered. It is then said
that this methane must have been resident in the
coal. But methane moves rather freely through coal,
and no reason can be found why it would have
become concentrated and remained there for
periods as long as the age of any particular coal
seam. It is more likely that the presence of the coal is
a good indicator for the upwelling methane.

Whereas the ash content in coal is far less than
the biogenic theory would predict, concentrations of
trace minerals may be far greater than the traditional
view can explain. By far the greatest human-made
contributor to radioactive pollution is not leakage
from the wastes and cooling water of nuclear power
plants but uranium-rich plumes from the
smokestacks of coal-fired power stations. In addition
to uranium, metals such as mercury, gallium, and
germanium are often found concentrated in coal,
much beyond normal sedimentary levels. These are
not metals one might expect to have
been concentrated by plants. Therefore, advocates
of the biogenic theory of coal formation presume
that some coal seams must have acted with the
same agency as the charcoal in cigarette and in
water filters: extracting metals passing through. But
in most cases of extreme concentrations, it is
difficult to see how ground water could have
transported enough of the substance through the
coal, even if all that passed had been arrested
there. In contrast, the upwelling theory holds that
coal, like petroleum, is formed from hydrocarbons
brought up from the deeps, leaching minerals
throughout their journey.

Another anomaly that is difficult for geologists to
explain through the biogenic theory is the presence
of coal seams in places where they ought not to be
and at inclinations they ought not to take. Most
commercially mined coal seams are layered
between sedimentary strata, but many coal deposits
in the world are not. Coal that is interbedded with
volcanic lava and without any sediments is known in
several volcanic areas, most notably in southwestern
Greenland.10 There coal is found in close proximity
to large, lava-encrusted lumps of metallic iron, not far
from mud volcanoes burbling methane and from a
rock face that frequently has flames issuing from its
cracks.11 Another notably nonsedimentary deposit
is located in New Brunswick, Canada. There a coal
called Albertite fills an almost vertical crack that
goes through many horizontally bedded sedimentary
layers. It was mined in the last century, but the
difficulty of mining a nearly vertical seam caused the
operation to be curtailed.l" The biogenic theory can
offer no remotely plausible causal explanations for
these and other anomalous coal environments.

Then, too, it is not uncommon to find lumps of
carbonate rock within a coal seam and, upon
breaking them open, to find fossils containing
wood- not black but light in color-and showing no
signs of turning into coal. Similarly, it is reported
that in the coal of the Donetz Basin of the Ukraine
can be found fossilized tree trunks that span
through a coal seam from the carbonate rock
below to that above. Those fossils are coalified
where they are within the coal seam and are not
coalified where they are in the carbonate.13

Many investigators have remarked on the
numerous inconsistencies that one sees if one
wishes to interpret the coal as a result of swamp
deposition in the locations in which the coal is now
found. H. R. Wanlass, for example, was puzzled by
the presence in some coalbearing regions of
interbedded clay layers only one or a few inches
thick that extended horizontally through the coals,
unbroken over distances of several hundred miles.
He therefore judged there to be "sufficient objections
to all proposed theories of the origin of these
clays to make each seem ludicrous. "14

The geographical distribution of coal deposits
poses another problem for the conventional theory. It
is assumed that oil and coal are the result of
completely different types of biological deposits laid
down in quite different circumstances and, in
many regions where both occur, at quite different
times. Biological debris from marine algae is
usually invoked for the formation of crude oil, and
terrestrial vegetation for coal. No close relationship
between the geographical distributions of the two
substances would thus be expected. But in fact, as
the oil and coal maps of the world have been
drawn in ever- increasing detail, a close
relationship has become unmistakable. The coal
and oil maps of southeastern Brazil are striking in
this respect (Figure 5.3).
Indonesia presents another such example; local lore
among those who drilled there for oil was "Once we
hit coal, we knew we were going to hit oil." Coal on
top and oil below is such a common feature that
chance cannot possibly account for it. In Wyoming,
some coal is actually found within the oil reservoirs.
In many sedimentary basins, including the San
Juan Basin of New Mexico and the Anadarko
Basin of Oklahoma, coal directly overlies oil and
gas (Figure
5.4). Alaska, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Ural Mountains-
all known for their oil fields-also possess
large amounts of coal. The same is true of
many other major oilproducing areas, such as
Venezuela, Colombia, and the Pennsylvania
section of the Appalachian Mountains.

Consider too that some coal fields contain and
yield more methane than could possibly be
produced by the existing coal. Coal that has not yet
"blackened" into nearly pure carbon would be
expected, under the biogenic theory, to relinquish
those hydrogen atoms slowly, probably in the form of
methane. But if methane is being generated by the
coal itself, rather than upwelling from an even greater
depth, it should be present in very limited supplies.
This is not always the case-to the consternation of
coal owners and miners. Even with a very fast,
enforced air flow, many coal mines are plagued with
methane explosions. Coal mining on Hokkaido,
Japan's north island, has come to a standstill
because even these, the world's best-ventilated coal
mines, could not avoid major explosions. The
explanation for the surfeit of methane, to my mind, is
that methane from the very source that created the
coal deposit is still streaming up. Coal is still
forming!














Figure 5.3 Overlap in the distribution of coal and
oil in eastern Brazil. Many other such areas of
overlap exist, which presents problems for the
biogenic theories of coal and oil formation but is
readily explained by the abiogenic theory.
SOURCE: oil map adapted from International
Petroleum Encyclopedia, 1994, p. 85; coal map
adapted from a commercial atlas by H. M.
Goushu Company, San Jose, Calif.



















Figure 5.4 An example of the vertical stacking of
gas, oil, and coal deposits in San Juan County,
New Mexico. The diagram at the left is a cross
section of the Hogback Field; at the right is the
Barker Creek Field.
An Exemption for Peat
"What about peat, and what about lignite?" I hear my
critics retort. "Surely you do not claim that these are
abiogenic!"

No, I do not so claim. Rather, peat and lignite (the
latter being a "brown coal" in which the structure of
the original plants can still be seen) represent a
most interesting partnership between biogenic
and abiogenic carbon sources.

There is a subtle connection between peat and
lignite on the one hand and oil and coal on the other.
Peat and lignite give clear evidence of having been
formed by plants in locations where the usual
processes of decomposition were prevented from
functioning and, where, therefore, the carbon and
other components of the plants were not returned to
the atmosphere. One way in which this can happen
is commonly discussed. If enough plants sink into a
pool of water and thus transform it into a stagnant
marsh or swamp, then the rate of absorption of
atmospheric oxygen will be low. Once even a small
amount of the plant debris is decomposed by
anaerobic microbes, chemical conditions in the pool
may become so hostile that any further
decomposition is prevented. The carbon content of
the plant fibers will not be turned into carbon dioxide,
which would escape, but instead will leave behind a
carbon sludge or a carbonaceous and
fibrous sponge of materials that will survive for a
long time, while also holding up the flow of water.

The anoxic situation in the swamp may often be
due to the rapid growth of bacteria plundering any
available oxygen atoms in order to burn, for their
metabolic needs, abiogenic methane upwelling from
below. Because methane is such a desirable food,
methanotrophic microbes will outcompete those that
would otherwise use oxygen to attack the plant
debris, the cellulose and lignin molecules of which
m a ny may be particularly resistant to attack. A
swamp will then be created from all the plant
material that has accumulated and not yet
decomposed.

Peat-forming conditions may also arise under
quite different circumstances from the swamp
example. A peat bog need not be nestled in a bowl
that has no natural outflow of water. A peat bog may
also be capable of holding water in thick layers of
plant debris for a long time without any assistance
from topography. Locations have been found in
Switzerland where a patch of peaty terrain-that is, a
patch of very soft ground vegetated by the same
flora that is characteristic of peat bogsoccurs on
steep hillsides, along fault lines that run transverse to
the slope of the hill. There would seem to have
been no impediment to the flow of water,
but a measurable output of methane can be
detected along the faults. In my view, methane
outgassing is therefore likely to create peat and
lignite deposits in regions overlying a strong flow
of hydrocarbons. I presume this is indeed the
explanation for the not uncommon presence of peat
and lignite fields on the surface overlying productive
oil and gas fields.

Another observation corroborates this presumed
causal association between peat and a significant
source of methane outgassing. I had measurements
done of the gases emanating from a large
commercial peat field in Canada. The results were
astonishing. In this peat field, the gases just below
the surface were greatly enriched with methane, as
is commonly the case in such environments-a
condition that supporters of the biogenic theory of
course attribute to the presence of methane-
excreting bacteria feeding on the plant debris in an
oxygenpoor environment. But the gases were also
enriched with all the other hydrocarbon gases from
C2Hs to C5H12. This mix is not normally produced
by plants in any of their stages of decay. Quite
simply, microbes do not excrete pentane while
decomposing carbohydrates.
Curious, and with my upwelling theory in mind, I
requested that a hole be drilled well outside this
Canadian peat field into the local soil,
which contained no peat-like material. The gases
drawn from this location proved to be very similar to
the gas composition in the peat field itself. The
whole area showed the same signs of
hydrocarbons. This indicated to me that most of
the gases detected within the peat field had in
fact entered from below and thus were similar to
the gases along the same fault line. Why in this
region of outgassing were some patches peaty
whereas others were not? I suppose that
differences in the cleansing effects of various rates
of ground-water flow may have been a factor.

Personal experience with one's own senses-
supplementing experience somewhat removed by
way of technology or altogether removed in the
library-provides a powerful stimulus for questioning
recei ved views. I have a vivid memory of one
such experience in Switzerland. I was walking
along a fairly steep hillside just above a small
brook. The ground was covered not by vegetation
but by a slimy mud. A colleague who was guiding
me bent down and stuck his five fingers quite
arbitrarily into the mud. He then took out a
cigarette lighter and swung t h e flame around the
holes that his fingers had made. It all lit up,
resembling the gas burners on a cooking top in
the kitchen! Many others have apparently had
this experience as well, though in another
country. I recall hearing that in a clay field near
Oxford, England, the workmen mining the clay
made use of a similar situation to cook their
lunches.

Peat and lignite are clearly biological materials,
but the reason for their accumulation may well lie in
the circumstances created by nonbiological
hydrocarbons that happen to upwell from below and
that may also add more carbon than contained in the
plants involved. There are many locations where one
may suspect such a conspiracy between surface
biology and the deep earth. Large peat deposits of
Sumatra reside above oil- and gas-rich regions.
Some lignite deposits (for example, those on the
north shore of the Straits of Magellan on the Atlantic
side) have commercial deposits of oil and gas just
underneath them. The neighboring Tierra del
Fuego- Land of Fire-may have been so named by
Magellan when he saw flames issuing from the
ground. This phenomenon has been incorporated
into folklore with frightening tales woven around the
ever-so-real presence of "swamp gas" that
may ignite spontaneously.

Crucially, the black coals do not grade smoothly
into the brown coal of lignite and thence into peat.
Rather, there is a sharp discontinuity between the
black and the brown-and, to my mind, a
sharp discontinuity between the circumstances
of their genesis as well. Black coals are the
progeny of the deep earth, shaped and glazed by a
deep biosphere feeding on a flowing stream of
edibles. In contrast, li gni te and peat are the
offspring of the surface biosphere-solar energy
that has been captured and put into temporary
storage, but often held stably, thanks to a bath
of hydrocarbon gases flowing up from below.

What about kerogen, though? Kerogen is a tar or
coal-like material found as small specks diffusely
distributed in various rock strata. Like petroleum, it
has never been brewed in a beaker, starting with
biological components of any variety and subjected
to temperatures and pressures of whatever degree.
Whenever kerogen is found near a deposit of
petroleum, it is declared to be the "biological source
material" that has given off the petroleum found
nearby. If kerogen is not in the vicinity, then the
petroleum is presumed to have migrated, perhaps a
great lateral distance, from a "source" rock that at
one time surely did contain kerogen. This
explanation of petroleum's origin is, in fact, central to
the biogenic theory. But how could a concentrated
petroleum reservoir coalesce from a quantity of
hydrocarbons that previously had been distributed
sparsely in a much larger volume of rock? No
explanation for this curiosity has been offered.
Because there are indeed chemical and isotopic
similarities between kerogen and the neighboring
petroleum, adherents to the biogenic theory claim
this fact in their favor. But why should the kerogen
and the oil in the region not have formed from the
same upwelling stream of hydrocarbons?

Thus many scientists who attempt to understand
coal seem to have fallen into the rut of the nearest
convenient theory. They explore the terrain of this rut
very effectively, down to the minutest feature within
the walls, yet they will not climb out for another look.
"You cannot argue with a fossil," was a remark
thrown at me during a lecture I gave on this subject. It
is true that you cannot dispute the biological
nature of the fossil, but certainly you can think
anew about what its presence implies for
the material surrounding it.






y the early 1980s I was convinced that the
abiogenic theory of petroleum formation was
substantially correct. I also knew that in order to
solve the petroleum paradox, the abiogenic theory
must be supplemented with a theory of what I called
the deep hot biosphere. I knew, however, that such
views pertaining to the widespread existence of
methane and other hydrocarbons deep within the
earth's crust would not be taken seriously in the
West unless I could offer a clear, practical
demonstration of its validity. The theoretical
arguments and indirect empirical evidence
presented in the previous three chapters would not,
in themselves, be sufficient to overturn the reigning
paradigm. Rather, I would need to prove that
hydrocarbons do indeed exist at a depth and in a
type of rock for which the biogenic theory could offer
no explanation. I would thus need to generate
interest in drilling for oil at a site that would be
regarded, under the prevailing view, as among the
worst of all possible prospects.

Discovery of oil or gas in even small quantities at
such a location might be persuasive, but commercial
production in such places would be better. Probably
nothing short of this scale would turn heads. Success
in this regard would be of more than scientific value.
It would be a feat of enormous economic
importance-first because the prognosis for future
energy supplies would have great influence on oil
and gas economics, and second because new
thinking and new exploration tech niques would be
indicated, which could then be used to make new
discoveries all around the globe. I would, however,
have to convince parties with money and expertise
that there was a strong possibility that the areas now
known to be rich in oil and gas are not the only
ones. I would have to make a sound case that this
valuable commodity would prove to be far more
widespread around the globe than had been
previously supposed and that the dependence
of many countries on oil importation
would, as a consequence, be greatly reduced.

How could I go about finding hydrocarbons,
possibly in commercial quantities, in new places-
places that would be quite unexpected according to
the conventional theory? How could an academic
like myself suddenly become an entrepreneur on the
scale necessary to prospect and drill in a place of
my choosing-or at least guide a relatively technical
operation of that kind?

Sweden seemed to me to be a particularly
favorable location for such an experiment. I had
traveled extensively in that country years earlier, and
I had observed that in many places where granitic
bedrock was exposed, cracks in the rock were filled
with a substance that looked like tar. When I asked
Swedish geologists to explain why tar would be
coming up through the granite, they told me the
followi ng story. There must once have been a thick
layer of sediment overlying most of the bedrock of
Sweden, and the organic materials in that sediment
produced oil. Cracks that developed in the bedrock
underneath sucked this oil downward, and now,
millions of years later, it is seeping up again.

This explanation made no sense to me. Water in
biological debris in the sediments would surely be
far more abundant than oils, and we have all
observed that oil floats on water. How, then, could
oils be the chief component to penetrate downward
into the cracks of the bedrock? This consideration
had weighed on my mind for a number of years and,
in itself, had seemed to make a good case for the
abi ogeni c theory. In my view, Swedish
bedrock represented an incomplete barrier for
hydrocarbons upwelling from below to reach the
surface.

Sweden would also offer an advantage as a test
site, being a prosperous and technologically
advanced country that however imported nearly all
the fuels it required. Drilling into the bedrock of
Sweden and finding commercial quantities of the
oils responsible for the tar seeps at the surface
could point to an ideal energy solution for that
nation's inhabitants. In turn, for me, drilling into the
igneous rock meant that sedimentary materials
could be avoided completely, and so no biological
origin could be stipulated if oils were in fact found at
depth. The abiogenic theory of petroleum formation
would thus be confirmed in the field.
Drilling in Swedish Granite
n opportunity arose unexpectedly in
1983 when I received an invitation to spend a day in
Stockholm explaining my ideas to senior officials of
the Swedish State Power Board (Vattenfall), an
invitation that had been mediated by a lawyer
friend in Washington who knew people with
Vattenfall. As I now read through the text of
my presentation, delivered fifteen years ago, I see
that my predrilling arguments were formulated
then much as I would formulate them now. Here
are some passages from this presentation that
were reprinted, in Swedish, in a daily newspaper.'

"Natural gas (mainly methane), as well as all
natural petroleum, was thought to be invariably of
biological origin on the earth. On that basis, the
ground of Sweden, composed almost entirely of
primary rock and not of sediments, could not come
under serious consideration as a source-material for
hydrocarbons. The numerous seepages of methane,
tars, and oils that occur in the bedrock of Sweden
have long been known as a geological puzzle in that
context, and various attempts at explanations have
been put forward. We now know that the deep
borehole on the Kola Peninsula in the far north of
European Russia [drilled by the Soviets near the city
of Nikel] in similar crystalline rock finds methane at a
depth of eleven kilometers as one of the principal
gases in the cracks. No explanation in terms of a
downward seepage of surface biological material
would seem adequate there.

"Sweden would then be seen as a mass of
crystalline rock [rock crystallized from a volcanic
melt] obstructing the upward flow of gases and
liquids from the deep layers below, which in this area
of the globe appear to be particularly rich in
hydrocarbons. The surrounds of Sweden all show
high hydrocarbon levels. The Norwegian trench,
stretching from the Dutch coast up to the North Cape
and beyond, constitutes the escape route on one
side. The Kola Peninsula, as well as the Baltic
states, all have evidence or even production of
methane. In Sweden, the only escape routes are
fractures in the basement rock.

"In most cases crystalline rock does not develop
sufficient porosity to hold deposits of oil or gas in
commercial quantities. One therefore has to search
for locations where the rock is thoroughly smashed
and converted to porous rubble. There are several
areas in Sweden that can come
under consideration, but by far the most prominent
is the Siljan Ring [located near the city of Rattvik in
central Sweden; Figure 6.11. Three hundred sixty
million years ago a large meteorite struck
there and produced a crater some 44 kilometers in
diameter. An impact of this magnitude would
shatter the crystalline rock all the way through the
crust of the earth, and when the ground readjusts
its level after the event, the entire interior of the
crater will be a region of porous rubble, down to a
great depth. This fortunate event created not only the
beautiful lakes of the Siljan Ring, but it also left a
deeply fractured and porous region in the interior
of the circle, in which fluids from below could
ascend and collect [Figure
6.2]. The Swedish Geological Survey has already
established that the rock is indeed shattered in the
regi on, and a gravity survey is consistent with the
expected level of porosity. The interior of the Siljan
Ring thus represents a possible reservoir of truly
enormous size by any standards.

"Shallow levels in porous rock do not contain
exploitable concentrations of gas unless there is a
particularly tight caprock to hold it down. This may
exist, but we have no reason to expect it in Siljan. At
deeper levels the situation is different. The rock
compresses under the weight of its overburden and
tends to hold down regions in which a high-pressure
gas has held open the pores. This type of
impediment to the upward flow of gases generally
arises at a depth of between three and five
kilometers in sediments but must be expected to
occur at deeper levels in the harder granitic rock. In
the Soviet borehole in Kola, a sudden change to an
expanded fracture porosity was seen at a depth of
seven kilometers, and this probably represents the
depth at which this type of rock will crush. Below this
level there will then be porosity domains held open
by the gas pressure, if indeed gases have been
coming up from regions of yet much higher pressure
far below.

"One may be lucky and find caprocks holding oil
or gas at shallower levels. If not, one has to drill to a
depth of seven or eight kilometers, still well within the
range of modern techniques. If it has been
established that we are indeed dealing with an area
of methane outflow from deep levels, then there is
every expectation of finding the occluded layers filled
with the gas, the outflow at the top representing in
fact the spill-over. The size of the area would make it
a truly gigantic gas field by any standard.

















Figure 6.1 Surface geologic map of the Siljan
Ring impact structure. The white areas are lakes.
The sediments are nowhere deeper than 300
meters. Two deep wells were drilled: The first at
Gravberg, to a depth of 6.7 kilometers (indicated
by black dot), the second at Stenberg, to a depth
of 6.5 kilometers (indicated by a cross).
SOURCE: Geological Survey of Sweden.
"A deep hole to eight kilometers may cost on the
order of $25 million (U.S.). In many successful areas
it has been necessary to drill several holes before
establishing good production. The oil and gas
business demands a high entrance fee, but it can
pay rich rewards. Perhaps a sum of $25 million
dollars has to be risked in the first round, and if
indications are good, a further sum of two or three
times that may have to be invested. But the expected
reward may be the energy independence of Sweden
for a long time to come."


Figure 6.2 Formation of an impact crater such as
the Siljan Ring. Note the numerous fractures that
would facilitate upward migration of deep fluids.
After R. A. F. Grieve, 1998, "The formation of
large impact structures and constraints on the
nature of Siljan," in A. Boden and K. G. Eriksson,
eds., Deep Drilling in Crystalline Bedrock, vol. 1
(New York: Springer-Verlag), 330.
With genuine enthusiasm I thus concluded my 1983
presentation to the Swedish State Power Board. In
December 1985 the Swedish Parliament approved
the project of drilling to a depth of at least 5
kilometers in the Siljan meteorite crater. The project
would be directed by the Swedish State Power
Board (a government-controlled energy authority),
w i t h additional funding contributed by Swedish
investors and the U.S. Gas Research Institute. The
Gas Research Institute, based in Chicago, was
interested not so much in the commercial success of
the enterprise as in the scientific findings that this
unconventional drilling would yield.

A spot in the area interior to the Siljan Ring was
selected in order to ensure that any oil discovered
could not be explained by skeptics as seepage
from the thin layer of limestones and
sandstones of Paleozoi c age surrounding the
crater (this layer, in any case, was nowhere
deeper than 300 meters). Substantial active oil
seepages can be seen in stone quarries within
that sedimentary region, but hydrocarbon gas
seepages are extensive throughout the impact
structure itself, issuing forth from purely igneous
rock. Numerous water wells will even support a
flame (Figure 6.3).

Drilling commenced in June 1986 and continued
until June 1990, when technical problems in the hole
made further drilling impossible without a very
substantial commitment of additional funds to drill a
new branch to the hole. Even so, the results
demonstrated that hydrocarbon gases from methane
to pentane-as well as light, largely
hydrogensaturated oils-are indeed present deep in
the granitic rock.2
Four branches of the hole were drilled below 5
kilometers (Figure 6.4), the deepest reaching a
vertical depth of approximately 6.7 kilometers. We
drilled with a water-based drilling fluid, so as not to
contaminate the well with introduced oils, and
obtained good measurements of hydrogen, helium,
methane, and the other hydrocarbon gases up to
pentane (C5H12). In the variations with depth, there
was a clear correlation of all the gases with one
another, including helium, a result that excluded the
possibility that they were in any way the result of
drilli ng additives put in from above. In general, the
volumes brought up in the returning drilling fluid
increased as the depth increased-a strong sign that
the hydrocarbon source resides at greater depth. All
these results confirmed the abiogenic theory of
petroleum formation and supported my view that
enormous quantities of hydrocarbons were still
streami ng up from a primordial source in the deep
crust and upper mantle. A most welcome surprise,
following upon these results, was our encounter with
a huge amount of a concentrated, very fine-grained
sub stance of great significance-the discovery of
which, as sometimes happens in science, occurred
only because of a mishap.












Figure 6.3 Flame supported by gas emissions
over a water well in the Siljan Ring. Methane
emissions in some places within the Siljan Ring
of Sweden are strong enough to produce a
flame. For this photograph I covered a water well
with a plastic sheet for a few minutes, than
pricked the sheet with a pin, and put a match
over the hole. A flame shot up 30 to 40
centimeters and then declined to 10 centimeters.
I aborted the experiment 10 minutes later when
the plastic began to melt. A video I was given
while in the region showed a flame 40 to 50
centimeters long emerging from the running
faucet in the kitchen of a local farmer's home.

Figure 6.4 Site of the drilling project in the Siljan
Ring.
Magnetite and Microbial Geology



n June 1987, just a year after operations
commenced, a most remarkable sequence of
events occurred. As a result of a drilling mishap, the
drill bit was stuck at a depth of 6 kilometers for a
period of ten days. During the shut-down, circulation
of drilling fluids was not maintained, which made it
possible for fluids from the environment to enter the
bottom of the pipe from below. When the drill pipe
w a s finally freed and brought to the surface, the
lowest 10 meters were tightly blocked by a very stiff
paste. Even the high-pressure pumps available on
the surface could not blow it out, and the pipe had to
b e cleaned out mechanically. The material was
black, had the consistency of putty, and emitted a
strong and objectionable odor.

A sample of the material was sent for analysis to
the Norwegian Petrochemical Laboratory, Geolab
Nor. The laboratory analysis showed the oil of the
black paste to be chiefly a light oil with smaller
amounts of heavy molecules whose precise identity
was not established. Geolab Nor stated that this oil
did not show any resemblance to any of the drilling
additives that had been supplied them for
comparison.

On a visit to the site three months later, I acquired
a sample for myself. Although some 60 kilograms of
this thick, black paste had been bored out of the
pipes when they were finally brought to the top,
nearly all of it had been thrown away, presumably
because it was judged an uninteresting, malodorous
nuisance of no commercial value. Nevertheless, it
was of extraordinary scientific value. Sadly, all that
remained in a preserved sample was to be found in
one small plastic bag.
The on-site chemist told me that the smell of the
clogged pipe when it was drawn up indicated to him
that the sludge was some bacterial product and that
therefore it must be something that had fallen in from
the top. Thus contaminated, the sludge would have
had no scientific value. How 60 kilograms of a
uniform black paste would have fallen in at the top
was not explained, nor was the reason why it
would have oil as a binder, rather than water, which
was the drilling fluid at the time. All but the small
sample in his hand had been bulldozed into
some ditch and covered with dirt to get rid of the
stench. The small sample he had retained was
in an ordinary polyethylene bag. Because
polyethylene soaks up and transmits oils, the
lighter hydrocarbons would have escaped easily.
The result of this inadequate preservation was that
the material was now rather stiff and not so
pliable as had been described initially.

It so happened that I was to go directly from
Sweden to a friend's house for a brief vacation on
the Spanish Mediterranean island of Mallorca. I
arrived there on a weekend, and for a day and a half
I had no access to anything one might buy in a
hardware store or a drug store. Yet I was fascinated
by the black material and could not wait that long
before analyzing it. I thus decided to attempt a little
kitchen sink (and kitchen cabinet) chemistry
experimentation.

I first looked through the apartment for anything
that might serve as an oil solvent, but there was no
paint solvent, no nail polish remover, or anything of
the kind. There were, however, magnets in the
house-the magnetic latches of cabinet doors-which
might give me an indication of one of the
substance's properties. I unscrewed one and
ascertained that the sludge was strongly magnetic.
Then I put a small amount of the material in hot water
and kitchen detergent, and indeed, after some
effort, it dissolved. The dilute liquid so
produced was almost transparent; it had just a
slight gray, hazy
appearance. It evidently contained particles, but
they
were very small. I put a drop of this fluid on a piece of
aluminum foil, and in the great dilution it
looked utterly transparent. Then I held the door-latch
magnet underneath, and instantly the two lines
of the magnetic poles appeared as distinct black
lines on top of the foil. Similarly, when I held the
magnet to a side of a glass filled with this liquid, it
immediately produced a large black patch on
the wall of the glass. Further experimentation
demonstrated that this material consisted mainly of
very small magnetic grains and an oil that could
be dissolved in water with kitchen detergent.

I next put a sample of the original paste in the
freezer overnight and observed that it was much
stiffer after that, but it was not completely hard and
could still be squashed and deformed. This implied
that it contained extremely little water, which would of
course have frozen. Thus, although the
drilling system was entirely filled with water at the
time the material was found, this sludge must have
entered in an oil-based fluid at a sufficient
concentration to replace the water and not mix with
it at all.

I also poured some drops of this dissolved
material onto kitchen paper towels to see whether
the towels would serve as a crude chromatograph,
by which one sorts out different components of a
fluid, depending on the mass and therefore on the
speed at which they diffuse in a porous material. A
black patch of a definite size was formed,
surrounded by a much larger but also clearly defined
wet area. This meant that the particle size was small
enough to be transported in the paper by diffusion.
Furthermore, when I cut a lump of the material with a
knife, the cut surface was glossy. I could judge from
this that the particle size could not be much
larger than the wavelength of light.

So what was all this? The only black and magnetic
material that I knew to occur in nature was magnetite
(Fe104). What I seemed to have detected, therefore,
was unusually fine-grained magnetite, yet in a size
range large enough to be ferromagnetic. Particles of
magnetite smaller than about 3 x 10 - 6 centimeter
would not support the cooperative phenomenon of
ferromagnetism. The strong odor emanating from
the sludge could be the smell of a heavy oil together
with rotting biological material. A dead rat on the
garage floor would be the best description I could
give.

Fine-grained magnetite was surely a major
component of the black sludge, but why was it there
at all? How had magnetite become concentrated in
a hydrocarbon fluid that could move through pores
a nd cracks of granitic rock sufficiently to enter an
untended borehole? And what might a dead rat have
to do with it?

I had many laboratory analyses done on the
sludge, demonstrating the fine-grain nature of the
magnetite, which ranged from just fractions of a
micron to no more than a few microns in
size.3
Mossbauer spectroscopy performed in two
laboratories4 showed the presence of zinc at the
level of about 2 percent, making zinc the second
most abundant metal, after iron. Because the zinc
was contained in the crystal lattice of the magnetite
(and because zinc was not a component of the
drilling hardware, fluid, or additives), it was clear that
zinc must have been available during the formation
of these crystals. I recalled, too, that in the vicinity of
the Siljan Ring there had indeed been a commercial
zinc and lead mine. These findings confirmed that
the sludge was native to deep rock, not a fabrication
of drilling fluid injected from the surface.

Neutron activation analysis5 also revealed a
similarly high level of zinc, as well as a number of
other anomalies. This investigation compared
magnetite grains contained in the sludge with the
coarser magnetite (millimeter rather than micron
size) contained in the drill cuttings at the same
depth. In addition to a size difference, the two
sources of magnetite showed numerous other large
differences in trace element content, many by factors
of more than 10. The quantities of magnetite
contained in the sludge were also very much greater
than the concentration of magnetite in the
surrounding granite. In abundance as well as size
and chemistry, the grains of magnetite in the sludge
were quite different from those in the rock
environment. This indicated to me that the source of
the magnetite or its precursor iron molecule resided
at a greater depth and that the leached molecules or
grains were borne upward by an ascending
hydrocarbon fluid.

Another important laboratory finding was the
unusually high level of iridium in the magnetite of the
sludge, which proved to be 250 times higher than in
the larger magnetite grains that were a usual
component of the granite and that were selected
from granite cuttings derived from the same
depth. The investigators stated that these were the
highest iridium values they had seen in anything
other than oil wells. Not only this black oily material
but also oil shales in the shallow and ancient
sedimentary rocks surrounding the rings had
previously been found to be enriched in iridium.
Fluids must have come up from deep in the
earth, bringing with them iridium compounds that
could then be traced in other oil- soaked
minerals.

This conclusion is based on conventional
understanding in the geosciences. Iridium is a very
heavy metal. During the earth's early phases of
differentiation, iridium and other heavy metals
(including abundant iron and nickel) migrated
toward the interior, becoming the earth's
metallic core. Unusually high concentrations of
iridium found anywhere in or on the crust could
have come from only one of two possible sources.
The iridium could have been transported by a fluid
upwelling from the depths of earth, or it could have
been delivered by a meteorite. The former
seems more probable, because there is a strong
association of iridium with
oil wells.

An additional investigation was initiated by my
friend Robert Hefner, a deep-gas entrepreneur. The
investigation was carried out by Paul Philp, at the
University of Oklahoma. Philp is a specialist in the
investigation of biological molecules in petroleum,
and he analyzed the oil in the black sludge for
such molecules. First, he concluded that the oil
was not any form of contaminant introduced by
the drilling process or from any of the additives. It
was a natural material. Second, he saw that a
number of a class of molecules called steranes were
the same set, and in much the same proportions,
as he had previously detected in the oil seeps at
the surface of the Siljan Ring and in oil shale that
existed in the shallow sediments surrounding the
ring. The view that oil shale in the sediments had
been the source material f o r the liquid oil seeps
would be the common assumption in petroleum
geology. Yet he now found the same fingerprints
in the oil brought up from a depth of 5 kilometers.
"How it got down there I do not know," was his
response to this strange finding. My response, of
course, was that all three types of oil had traveled
upward from deep levels.6

Philp had also identified one molecule as
characteristic of a product of a marine organism,
and he thought this to be further proof of a downward
migration of the oil produced at shallow depth.
However, I later ascertained that the same molecule
was a common product of methane-oxidizing
bacteria, which are scarce in the surface biosphere
but, I believe, abundant at depth.

The most remarkable recent analysis of the Siljan
sludge revealed the probable origin of all the
magnetite, which would also account for its
concentration and for the stench of the sludge. The
answer: Life was responsible. I had suspected the
fine-grained magnetite to be a bacterial product,
even though temperatures at the depths at which the
magnetite was found ranged from 600C to 80C.
Magnetite is one of the substances left behind when
more highly oxidized iron is reduced by bacteria.
(Magnetite, Fe3041 contains 16 atoms of oxygen for
every 12 atoms of iron, whereas ferric iron, Fe2031
contains 18 atoms of oxygen for every 12 atoms of
iron, so magnetite is the reduced form.) The
microbes, therefore, were scavenging oxygen atoms
from ferric iron in order to burn the hydrocarbons that
were streaming past them. Magnetite was the by-
product of this metabolic activity.

Thus it seemed necessary to make an effort to
culture microbes from these depths, and I asked the
Swedish National Bacteriological Laboratory in
Stockholm whether they would try. Dr. U. Szewzyk
expressed great interest, and he and his team
decided to make the attempt. They designed a
sampling apparatus on a wireline, with many
capsules at different depths. The device was
introduced at a time when drilling had stopped and
water from the formation was filling the hole. The
result was strikingly positive.7 At least two previously
unk no wn strains of bacteria were successfully
cultured, both in a temperature range similar to that
at the sampling depth, and both in anaerobic
conditions also similar to those at the sample
locations. Although acetate and sugars were used
as the nutrients to support bacterial growth (these
substances are commonly used for bacterial
cultures), rather than hydrocarbons and iron oxides,
the fact that any life was present at all and that
magnetite was present in large amount was
significant. Because of the character of the nutrients,
the cultured microbes were somewhat removed from
what was probably the first stage of the food
chain; presumably, they fed on the microbes
that were nearer to the primary step.
Nevertheless, they did demonstrate the presence
of at least one node of the ecology in the deep
biosphere of the Siljan Ring.'

Thermophilic microorganisms were indeed
present at depth in the Swedish well, and they can
be assumed to have been responsible for the
production of the large quantities of magnetite that
had invaded the drill pipe. Corresponding to this,
large quantities of hydrocarbons must have been
used up in the reduction of ferric iron to magnetite,
which is the lowest oxidation state of iron that could
be reached by reduction with hydrocarbons.

The concentrated magnetite was far more than an
isolated curiosity, however. The same sort of fine-
grained magnetite was found in abundance in a
very similar oil encountered within a second
borehole that our Swedish team drilled soon
after the first borehole. The second site was at
the center of the Siljan Ring, 11 kilometers distant
from the first hole. This second find provided
strong confirmation that the earlier discovery had
not been a local anomaly and had not been
produced by any drilling additives (as some critics
had claimed), because for this hole, water had been
the principal drilling fluid, and no oils remotely
similar to crude oil had been allowed near the
hole.

The entire Siljan Ring, an area of about 1600
square kilometers, shows a strong positive magnetic
anomaly centered on the circular feature. Magnetite
was the only magnetic mineral that we had
encountered, and one could calculate the quantities
that would account for the anomaly. The results were
comparable to the quantities in other Swedish
magnetite deposits that had long been mined as the
b e s t source of iron ore for steel production. This
suggests that similar magnetite sludge produced by
the same sorts of biological and geological
processes apparent at depth in our Siljan boreholes
may have produced Sweden's numerous and
commercially valuable magnetite iron ore deposits,
from which the country's highly successful steel
industry was built up. If microbially made magnetite
was indeed the origin of all the Swedish magnetite
deposits, this would represent a case for microbial
geology on a large scale.

The oil sludge drawn from a depth of 6 kilometers
in a purely granitic and igneous region of Sweden is
compelling evidence of the presence of
hydrocarbons at a depth that the biogenic theory
cannot account for. The sludge thus provided strong
confirmation of the deepearth gas theory. Culturing
experiments, in turn, provided tantalizing clues to the
presence of deep microbial life. More than just
theoretically useful, the demonstration that unusual
concentrations of magnetite are correlated with
hydrocarbons has also proved to be of practi cal
importance in petroleum exploration. It is now widely
regarded that positive magnetic anomalies, which
can readily be located, are indeed indications of the
presence of hydrocarbons."

There is one more installment to this story of
petroleum discovery in the Siljan region. In April
1990 a downhole pump was installed in the first hole
to see what could be pumped up (a common
procedure in the petroleum industry). All the samples
taken previously had been from fluids and
sludge caught in the drilling equipment. This
pumping operation pulled up some 12 tons of
crude oil, described by the Danish Geological
Survey as "looking like ordinary crude oil." Along
with the oil came 15 tons of fine-grained
magnetite. Concentrations of hydrocarbons were
seen in the rock cuttings of the second hole,
which were sampled every 5 feet of depth. All the
extremely high values came each time from
samples where the drill had crossed a volcanic
intrusive rock, dolerite, which is a known feature in
the granite of the area. The intrusive volcanic
rock had certainly come up from deeper levels,
and this suggested that these intrusions were
the conduit for the hydrocarbons. I could not have
hoped for a stronger confirmation of the deep
origin of the hydrocarbon fluids (Figure
6.5).

Thanks to the 1990 pumping results, the quantities
of oil and magnetite paste found at depth could no
longer be dismissed as "trace amounts," as they
had been described earlier in several scientific
journals. Nevertheless, no major journal would
publish these striking results, and I received
responses from referees that called these
observations totally incredible and maintained that
they would have to be repeated by another team
before they could be accepted for publication. Our
invitations to major petroleum research
organizations to send delegates to the site and
observe our actions went unheeded.

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
a b i o g e ni c origin of petroleum had thus
been confirmed. Dr. Peter N. Kropotkin, a
distinguished petroleum geologist in the former
Soviet Union 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
in deep wells that were drilled in the central part
of the crystalline Baltic Shield, on the initiative of
T. Gold.""

Nevertheless, no commercial flow rate could be
established in either hole drilled in the Siljan region.
That was not, however, because the supply was
meager. Rather, a short time after a flow had started,
magnetite paste always blocked the cracks in the
rock entering the wellbore. (Had the technical
resources, the money, and the interest been
available to drill another, substantially deeper branch
of the hole, the ultimate source of the hydrocarbons
might well have become available in commercial
quantities. But further drilling would have been a
gamble for the investors, so they decided to call it
quits at that point. As it stands, and like many
drilling ventures in the petroleum business, the
project never proved to be commercial, but it was
nonetheless a scientific success.)
















Figure 6.5 Methane concentrations in rock
cutting grains between depth of 5.7 km and 6.6
km. Upper figure shows methane extracted from
interior of the grains. A consistent extraction
procedure was used, so the relative values are
correct, even though the absolute values cannot
be defined accurately. The lower figure
indicates, on the same depth scale as above,
the occurrence of volcanic intrusive rock,
dolerite. The high columns represent pure
dolerite grains, the low ones represent a mixture
of granite and dolerite grains. The rest of the line
represents pure granite grains. The
correspondence of high values of methane
with
dolerite intrusions is evident.
What a cruel and ironic turn of fate! Commercial
success was not possible because of the great
abundance of the very substance that bestowed on
this project its scientific success. Magnetite
sludge ma d e sustained petroleum production
impossible, but it lent important support to the
deep hot biosphere theory.

In the Swedish drilling project, I had been granted
a glimpse of the deep hot biosphere. I now thought it
quite possible that subsurface microbiology was so
widespread that every oil-bearing region had been
subjected to biological alteration, down to the
deepest wells from which oils have been extracted.
Because the earth's temperature increases with
depth, the microbial life forms involved must be
hyperthermophilic, living at temperatures up to
120C, possibly as high as 1501C. And as
explained in Chapter 5, I soon came to suspect that
the quantity of these life forms, in terms of mass or
volume, could be at least comparable to the quantity
of all the surface life we know. The deep hot
biosphere theory would solve the paradox of
seemingly conflicting facts that had long split
petroleum geology into two camps and had stalled
reconsideration of the origin of petroleum for
many decades. Might this new view of life within
the earth call for a rethinking of much of the rest of
geology, as well?
('4 11aI)I('I- 1






nce wtie come to understand the
exi stence and immensity of hydrocarbon sources
streaming up from the earth's mantle, we can
profitably revisit a number of subjects in geology.
Some of these subjects have long been regarded
as geological puzzles; others have seemed settled
but, I believe, require a fresh look.

In this chapter, I will explore two extensions of the
deep-earth gas theory. The first is an interpretation
of the genesis of diamonds at great depth within the
earth. In the second, I present a new view of how
some metal deposits have arisen and become
concentrated in clusters in the outer crust. Because
both topics are persistent problems in geology, the
speculations offered here might pique some special
interest. Chapter 8 will then pursue a third, and very
controversial, extension in the geosciences of
deep- earth gas theory: an explanation of the
earthquake process.

Chemistry at great depth is likely to be quite
different from the lowpressure chemistry with
which we are familiar. At a depth of 150
kilometers, for example, the pressure would be 40
kilobar, which is equivalent to 40,000 times our
atmospheric pressure. Very many different
molecules will be held together by that level of
external pressuremolecules that we have never
seen at the surface. In fact, the
very concept of molecules begins to break down at
pressures comparable to the forces within a
molecule that hold it together or make it come
apart. W e may have seen at the surface some
of the degraded products of these unknown
molecules or crystallographic forms, but we cannot
produce them or examine the antecedents.
Nevertheless, they may play a major role at depth.

Conducting experiments at a pressure of 40
kilobar or more, and at the elevated temperatures
that occur at depth, would require extremely
expensive apparatus. Furthermore, thermodynamic
calculations for understanding the secrets of deep
chemistry are complex and very difficult to perform in
an exploratory way. If one knows what one is looking
for, some information may be obtainable. But as a
means of determining unknown molecules,
calculations by themselves are not very suitable. The
circumstances in which the atoms of molecules
deri ved from this largely unknown chemistry are
found may shed some light on the chemical
processes that were involved, especially because
the re are many clear regional correlations in the
deposits of certain metal minerals and, in the case
of carbon deposits, associations with features in the
crust.

What are the processes in the earth that have
concentrated certain materials in well-defined
locations in the crust? One might have thought that
the tendencies would go the other way-that
subsurface earth processes would arbitrarily mix
things up. But then why could we ever pick up a
nugget of gold or a diamond made from very pure
carbon? Or why would we find locations where some
particular metals are concentrated in a rock by
factors of a million or more relative to other rocks?

Some powerful processes of concentration
must be working in the earth, driven by internal
energy that the earth possesses. One such source
of energy is the gravitational field, which would
tend to make
heavy substances sink and light substances rise. We
can understand the formation of an iron core in that
way, because iron is abundant and about twice as
dense as the rocks. It is equally easy to understand
the arrival at the surface of water and other fluids that
are less dense than most rocks. But there are many
concentration processes that are defined by the
chemical properties of a substance, not just by its
density. It is generally believed that all those cases
must involve a liquid flowing through pores in the
rock, and its chemical properties must be such as to
pick up from the rock, and carry along in the flow, the
specific atom or molecule that is to be concentrated.
Then some change of circumstances-such as
pressure, temperature, or a chemical agentmust
decrease the quantity of the substance that the fluid
can transport, thus leading to a deposition of the
substance, now highly concentrated compared to its
initial presence in the rocks. All sorting processes
require energy, and that energy must be coming, at
least in part, from chemical energy that the earth has
possessed since its formation.

Although many observed concentrations of
chemical components have been satisfactorily
explained by reference to such processes, many
others have long presented major puzzles for
geology. There is nothing more interesting or more
important in science than the observations that we
cannot explain. The formation of diamonds and the
laying down of certain metal ores belong to this
category. Let us turn to these two puzzles now.
The Origin of Diamonds
he discovery on and near the earth's
surface of crystals of pure carbon-diamonds-was
wholly unexpected. These are not crystals that are
stable and in equilibrium at low pressures, and for
this reason diamonds could not have formed
anywhere near where they were found. Even if a
near-surface process could concentrate carbon to
high purity, this should have led to the deposition of
graphite, the stable crystallographic form of carbon
in the earth's crust. Diamond is the high-pressure
form of carbon, but the pressure required to reach
thi s stable condition is so immense that one would
hardly have expected to find samples at the surface.
Not only could they not have formed here, but they
will in fact decay to graphite (the black stuff in your
pencil) in the course of time. Diamonds are not
forever, but as it turns out, they are for long enough.

The pressure needed to reach the domain of
diamond stability is approximately 40 kilobar, or
40,000 times our atmospheric pressure. This is
known from theoretical calculations and has
been confirmed in high-pressure experimentation.
We do not find in nature any pressure vessels
that could have withstood such pressures. The
only locations we know of in which we would
expect such pressures would be at a depth
at which the overburden weight of rock would
balance that pressure. The earth is not built like a
steam boiler, where the tensile strength of steel
will contain high pressure; rather, it is built like
a pile of rubble, arbitrarily thrown together and
possessing no tensile strength. This lack of tensile
strength enables us to calculate the minimum
depth at which the pressure required for diamond
formation could be reached, and that is
approximately 150 kilometers-and thus in
the mantle well below the crust. This leaves two
things to be explained: how diamonds came to the
surface and why they retained the high-pressure
form at the surface and did not degrade into
graphite.

The essential discovery that answered both of
these questions was made near a town called
Kimberley, in South Africa, in 1870. Diamonds were
found there, but so too was an extraordinary feature:
a steep, funnel-shaped depression that went deep
into the rock, narrowing from about 200 meters at
the top to a few meters at a depth of about 1
kilometer, and continuing downward as a pipe to
beyond the depth of observation. By now 10
such funnel features bearing diamonds have been
found, distributed around the globe. They contain
some mantle rocks, together with local fill that has
fallen in. This fill and the ground nearby
display a high concentration not only of diamonds
but also of a rock called kimberlite, which appears
to have come from great depth. (A few more such
features have been found containing kimberlite
but no diamonds.) Although these pipes are often
called volcanic, no evidence of frozen lava has
been found in them.

An extraordinary picture thus emerges: Diamonds
must represent enormous gas blowouts, presumably
from a diamond-forming depth such as 150
kilometers. Enough fluid pressure must have built up
there to blow a hole through all of the overlying 150
kilometers of rock, and the erupting gases carried
up material from the great depth. This, then, is how
we come to have natural diamond at the surface. But
the eruption process also explains why the diamond
persisted and did not decay into graphite. In this fast
eruption the driving gas would cool rapidly, and with
it the diamonds. Then, at the low temperature of the
surface, the diamonds would no longer have the
internal energy to convert their crystal configuration
and so would remain an unstable solid in a
"supercooled" state. (We all have some
acquaintance with supercooled configurations, which
include steel knives that have been heated and then
cooled rapidly and thereby turned into a harder and
more brittle steel).

Why are diamonds so rare at the surface? The
concentration of pure (unoxidized) carbon at
diamond-forming depth and the occurrence of a
blowout from there all the way to the surface are both
improbable. Which of these is the factor that limits
the quantities delivered? Is there a connection
between them, such that the places in which carbon
became concentrated also provided large bubbles
of high-pressure gas in the rocks? Or are the two
phenomena independent of each other, in which
case a very high content of diamonds in the deep
rocks would be presumed, so that each deep
blowout had a good chance of bringing up precious
stones? We do not yet know the answer to this
tantali zi ng question. Worse still, we cannot
even suggest a line of investigation that could be
pursued, within the limits of our present ability and
knowledge.

What happens to diamond-bearing rock, however,
when geological processes force it to the surface at
a slow speed? A slab of rock in North Africa is
composed of materials known to indicate a
very deep origin. This rock contains many inclusions
filled with graphite, which is the crystalline form of
pure carbon at low pressure. But that graphite
reveals the octahedral shapes characteristic of
the crystallographi c structure of diamond.
These inclusions started as diamonds, it has been
plausibly argued, but in the course of a slow
ascent and gradual cooling, the carbon atoms
reassembled into the low-pressure form.' This
is an important observation, for it indicates that
at least in some areas, diamonds were very
abundant at their formation depth. The
African slab of graphite inclusions suggests
an original abundance of diamonds more than
100,000 times greater than in the kimberlite pipes.
This in turn implies that carbon- bearing fluids were
abundant at those levels also and that they
deposited clean carbon. Perhaps
diamonds are rare at the earth's surface not
because they are rare at depth but because the
eruptions that can transport them quickly are rare
events.

Diamonds often contain inclusions of high-
pressure, carbon-bearing fluids, notably methane
and carbon dioxide.' One of these fluids is
presumably the principal carbon source from which
pure-carbon crystals originated at depth. I tend to
believe that methane or the other light hydrocarbon
gases were principally responsible, because
they are more easily dissociated into component
atoms than is carbon dioxide. By far the dominant
quantity of gases enclosed within diamond is
nitrogen. We do not know the reason for this
association, but it could be that nitrogen will lead
to the formation of ammonia (NH3) and thereby
rob methane of its hydrogen, causing the
deposition of carbon. As yet w e do not know
the high-pressure chemical equilibrium between
these two substances; all we know is that they
are often seen together on planetary bodies
and that neither destroys the other at low pressure.

The carbon isotopic ratios in diamonds have been
used in a study of diamonds originating in two
different types of rock. The authors reach the
conclusion that neither the influence of recycled
b i o g e ni c carbon nor the global and primordial
heterogeneity of mantle carbon are likely for the
origin of the large C-13 range; the data instead
support a fractionation process.3

Hydrocarbon fluids present a problem similar to
that of diamonds, but their abundance in the
earth's upper crust blinds us to their anomalous
presence in our realm. At high pressures,
hydrocarbons represent the stable configuration of
hydrogen and carbon. Hydrocarbons should
therefore form spontaneously in the upper mantle
and deep crust. B ut at low pressures at or near
the earth's surface, liquid hydrocarbons are
supercooled, unstable fluids.
As they upwell into lower-pressure regimes, they
begin to dissociate, and this means they begin to
shed hydrogen. This is exactly what we see in the
vertically stacked patterns of a hydrocarbon region
that go from methane at the deepest levels to oils
and eventually to black coals at the shallowest levels.
Each step in that stack is one of further hydrogen
loss.

Overall, the abiogenic theory of petroleum
formation offers the possibility of a more thorough
explanation for the genesis of diamonds. I have
raised objections in earlier chapters to several
widely held beliefs in modern geology, such as "The
existence of pore spaces at depths of more than a
few kilometers is highly improbable"; "Unoxidized
carbon cannot exist at levels deeper than the
sedi ments"; "Hydrocarbons are not stable below a
depth of about 15 kilometers"; and "Gas emission
from deep levels (where there are no pore spaces)
cannot occur." The diamond formation process I
have described is in sharp disagreement with
each of those beliefs. The existence of diamonds
thus tells us that there are pore spaces at mantle
depths and that they can be filled with carbon-
bearing fluids; that these pore spaces allow fluid
flow through them; that unoxidized carbon (the
diamonds themselves and hydrocarbon gases) can
and do exist at these deep levels; and that
gigantic gas eruptions from these levels can
occur. I do not know of any other process that
could bring together clean carbon to make
centimeter-sized pieces of diamond, nor any
expulsion process other than the one I have
described. With the knowledge that the diamonds
have provided for us, we can next assess whether
the abiogenic theory provides an opportunity to
understand better the mechanism by which other
important resources-concentrated deposits of
vari ous metals, including copper, iron, zinc, lead,
and uranium-have come into being.
A New Explanation for Concentrated
Metal Deposits




n places throughout the world, and especially
in northern South America and in the Wyoming-
Montana region of the United States, metals may be
found in concentrated clusters of deposits that may
include copper, lead, zinc, silver, and gold in close
proximity. How do all these kinds of metals come to
be found in the same neighborhood, and each in
concentrated deposits? What processes could
single out an element and cause its deposition at a
concentration a million or even a hundred million
times greater than in the source composite from
which it came? We find high concentrations of
certain metals even in rocks like granite where such
deposits clearly represent intrusions that occurred
after the magma solidified.

Several general conditions must be satisfied for
metal concentrations to form. First, as already
discussed, there must be a fluid that can flow through
pore spaces and fissures in a source rock where the
metal is only sparsely distributed. This fluid must be
able to gather up-that is, to leach-the metal from the
rock and carry it along with the flow. Leaching is a
very energy-intensive process. So in order to
perform this feat, there must be a source of physical
pumping energy that can push the fluid through the
rock. Then, to make an ore deposit out of the
leached and transported material, the fluid must
encounter conditions that cause its metal cargo to
drop out of solution. Those conditions may include a
decline in temperature as the fluid rises toward the
surface. Or perhaps mixing with and contamination
by a different kind of fluid will change the chemistry
and solubility to a point where the metal drops out of
solution. Possibly, too, a threshold loss of pressure
d u r i n g the upward journey might trigger the
dissociation. And, as we shall see, life in the
deep hot biosphere may even play a supporting
role.

Hot water is generally considered to be the fluid
responsible for creating concentrated metal
deposits, but the hydrothermal theory cannot account
for realistic processes that could concentrate some
of the metals. Indeed, the problem is so great that
answers are promoted piecemeal-some chemical
reactions are proposed for the solution and
deposition of one metal, and a different set is
proposed for another. Piecemeal answers are
especially questionable when there is a group of
metals involved, and a different path is suggested for
the formation of each of them, yet they are
often found closely packed together. The problem is
more general, and so one solution should be
found that adequately explains the collective
phenomena. There are groups of metals whose
shallow deposits are often found in close
association, such as zinc with lead, and gold
with silver and other heavy metals.

There are two great difficulties with the
hydrothermal theory of the formation of metal ores.
First, many metals, especially the heavy met als, are
not sufficiently soluble in water at any temperature-
even in brines hosting aggressive salts. Geochemist
Konrad Krauskopf, for example, noted in his
textbook that the insolubility of many metals and their
compounds in water is "a long-standing difficulty with
the classical hydrothermal hypothesis of
metal deposition." He gave examples of the
enormous quantities of water, bearing mere traces
of metals, tha t would have to have flowed
through cracks in order to account for the
accumulation of known metal deposits. He
concluded that those quantities were quite
unrealistic.4

The second problem with supposing a water-
based fluid for the deposition of metals is a
likely deficiency in pumping power for leaching
metals in
the first place. Water circulates through the
outer
crust of the earth, but only rarely (if at all) to depths of
10 kilometers. Boreholes that go to such depths
have a much higher probability of turning up light
hydrocarbon fluids than water. If we assume,
therefore, that water-facilitated leaching takes place
at a depth of no more than about 10 kilometers, then
the pressure driving the pumping action at such
depth would be given at most by the overburden
weight of rocks, including the weight of its contained
fluid (which is usually a very small fraction of the total
weight). The maximum power available to drive the
flow and hence the leaching, on the assumption that
water and rock were initially in pressure equilibrium
at depth, would be the volume that is expelled per
unit time, multiplied by the pressure difference
between the entry and exit points (leaving out the
component that is derived just from the static head of
water). At a depth of 10 kilometers the rock
overburden weight would create a pressure of about
3000 bar (3000 atmospheres), and the static head
of water would be about 1000 bar. Thus 2000 bar (a
mere 2 kilobar) would be available to drive the fluid
through the rocks. This is not an impressive amount
o f pressure for the task required, and it would not
give the fluid a strong leaching ability.

Better candidate fluids for the leaching and
transport of metals are hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon
fluids surpass water in both the capacity to hold
metals in solution and the pumping power required
for the energy-intensive leaching process. Consider,
for example, the leaching power of a hydrocarbon
fluid that flows upward from a source depth
around that at which diamonds formed,
undoubtedly by the dissociation of clean carbon
from a carbon-bearing fluid. At a depth of 150
kilometers, the pressure bath would be 40
kilobar, or about 40,000 times the atmospheric
pressure at sea level. Using the same density
assumptions as in our previous example, we would
expect a driving force for leaching of about 35
kilobar. This is far greater than the 2 kilobar of
leaching power we calculated in our previous
water
example. Even by itself, this fact should alert us to
the need to investigate whether these fluids, so
highly powered for leaching through great distances
of rocks, have anything to do with the metal
concentrations that have been deposited from some
sort of leaching solution.

Another point in favor of hydrocarbons as the fluid
carrier of metals is that we know that many
metals are indeed carried in petroleum.
Hydrocarbons may enter into molecular
arrangements with metals to form complexes
called organometallics. Organometallic molecules
have been identified in every crude oil that has
been analyzed; vanadium and nickel porphyrins
are the most prominent, but there are several
others. Gold and silver organometallic
molecules, for example, are detectable in
some crude oils, though only in trace amounts.

Porphyrins are a group of organometallics that
contain nitrogen in addition to carbon and hydrogen.
Porphyrins such as hemoglobin (with a single iron
atom at its core) and chlorophyll (with a single
magnesium atom at its core) are valuable catalysts
and are manufactured by many familiar forms of
surface life. The origin of porphyrins found in
petroleum was therefore readily attributed to
biological debris. That explanation would lead us to
expect to see principally magnesium and iron
porphyrins in petroleum. Yet not a single case is
known of their presence in petroleum.5 Instead, only
nickel and vanadium porphyrins have consistently
been found. It seems extremely improbable that on
every occasion, in all oils, the original metal
atoms were exchanged for just nickel and
vanadium from the rocks in their surroundings.
Furthermore, it has not been explained how plant
debris would have produced the nickel and
vanadium molecules when subjected to the
relatively low pressures and temperatures that
the prevailing view point deems necessary for the
genesis and stability of biogenic hydrocarbons. In
the picture of the deep earth set
forth in this book, however, nickel and vanadium
complexes may well be expected to form at the high
temperatures and pressures at depth. Possibly
these two are simply the organometallic compounds
that survive longest, after many others have
disintegrated at deeper levels beyond our reach.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet
developed any idea of the organometallic chemistry
that would prevail at a pressure of, say, 50
kilobar. We have, as yet, few laboratory
simulations of this kind. Surely, many molecules
would be held together at this pressure, even
though they would readily disintegrate at the
pressures near the surface of the crust. Among
those, organometallics may be plentiful i n cases
where the formation of organometallic molecules
occupies less volume than the materials from which
they are derived. Perhaps a whole range of
organometallics are produced by hydrocarbons
leaching through rocks at great depths and over vast
distances.

Organometallics are not only built from
hydrocarbons together with the metals that
hydrocarbons can leach from rock on their long
upward journeys; they can also be transported by
hydrocarbons. Most organometallics are soluble in
hydrocarbon oils and thus will be carried along with
the flow. When temperature, pressure, or other
solubility conditions reach a threshold at which a
particular kind of organometallic can no longer be
carried by the stream, a concentrated metal deposit
would be generated in that spot.

The hydrocarbon flow, on the way up, would
generate a large array of molecules, the particular
ones depending on such things as the carbon-
hydrogen ratio at formation, the ratio to other
elements such as nitrogen and oxygen, the catalytic
action of specific minerals in the rocks, and the
pressure-temperature regime encountered along the
way. Among those molecules may be one class that
is unusually favorable for forming a particular
organometallic compound with one metal, another
class with another. The great diversity of
hydrocarbon molecules (differentiated by the number
of carbon atoms bonded together in chains, in
rings, or in some combination of the two) could thus
be the reason for the selectivity in metal deposits.
Different kinds or groups of metals would occur
in closely packed locations, suggesting a general
hydrocarbon upwelling in the area, yet the
deposits may be segregated because of
differences in metal affinities with various
hydrocarbon molecules. Hydrocarbons of greater
or lesser carbon number or some other structural
feature would also be expected to unburden
themselves of their metallic constituents at different
threshold changes of temperature, pressure,
acidity, and solutes. This could well account
for the observation that lead and zinc are typically
found together, gold with silver, and so forth.

Empirical support for the hydrocarbon theory of
metal deposition includes the close association of
carbon with gold that is well recorded in both
scientific and popular accounts of mineral
prospecting. Gold miners in Colorado, California,
the Yukon, and South Africa were well aware of this
typical association and searched for a "black
leader"-a trail of carbon. They would then dig along
the blackened passages, with a reasonable hope of
reaching a body of rock that contained a useful
admixture of gold. Conventional geological wisdom
gives no hint of an explanation for this association,
but the deep-earth gas theory surely does. Gold has
been leached out of deep rocks and transported as
a n organometallic by an upwelling stream of
hydrocarbons. Because of changes in pressure and
other conditions along the way, at some point the
metal dissociates from the hydrocarbon molecule.
And as with coal deposits, eventually the hydrogen,
too, escapes from the carrier molecule, leaving
behind carbon, or soot, which might then be
carried s o me distance by flowing water-hence
the "black leader."
It is interesting that the other substance commonly
associated with gold is silicon dioxide-quartz.
Silicon is in the same column and below carbon in
Mendeleyev's table of the elements (the periodic
table), and the two have very similar properties.
Silicon is, however, much more reactive than carbon.
It is found only in oxidized form, whereas carbon is
found in both oxidized and reduced forms. Silicon
will form oils that are quite similar to hydrocarbon
oils but that sometimes have higher thresholds of
thermal stability. Silicon oils and hydrocarbon oils
are almost certainly soluble in one another. I do not
know (and possibly no one knows) whether silicon-
metallic compounds, analogous to organometallics,
will form at high temperatures and pressures. An
argument in favor of silicon oils as metal carriers is
the occurrence of gold in quartz veins rather than in
quartz deposits, which suggests a common
migration path for both the silicon dioxide and the
gold.

Sometimes it is not just leftover soot but
hydrocarbons themselves that are associated with
metal deposits. For example, the ancient tin mines in
the granitic rock of Cornwall, England-mines that
suppli ed ancient Rome with tin-have oil dripping
down on the miners as they work. Other sites of
metal mining that are associated with hydrocarbons
include Wyoming, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains.
Methane explosions in the granite of an iron mine in
Newfoundland have stopped mining operations
there. Despite substantial evidence of the
association between metals and hydrocarbons,
scientific papers that report these findings still lean
toward hydrothermal explanations for the metals,
assuming that the hydrocarbons are a mere
contaminant, which they ascribe to nearby biological
debris.'

Many metals will readily form metal sulfides if
sulfur is available. Mercury, as the sulfide cinnabar,
is often found together with oil and tar. Mercury may
come up in a gas stream as mercury vapor or as
dimethyl-mercury, having enough sulfur to transmute
into cinnabar. This mechanism would also apply to
many other metals, which would not resist being
wedded to sulfur and thus being transformed into
metal sulfides. For mercury, it is particularly clear
that the metal has come from great depths; it is
strongly associated with helium, in particular with
helium high in the isotope helium-3, which is the
marker for primordial helium caught in the formation
of the earth and making a small addition to the
helium derived from the radioactivity of uranium and
thorium.

Is the deep hot biosphere involved in any way in
metal deposits? One might speculate that microbial
activity plays a role in some cases, especially in the
formation of nuggets of pure metals. It is quite
conceivable that microbes find the hydrocarbon
component of the organometallics to their liking and
thus take the initiative to strip the metal of its
surrounding hydrocarbon at a depth below the
threshold at which dissociation would
occur abiotically. One may also suspect that
different strains of microbial life prefer different
organometallic compounds to disintegrate. That
could perhaps account for or contribute to the effect
that is clearly of major consequence in this puzzle:
the clustering of several different metal deposits in
closely neighboring regions. These would be regions
in which hydrocarbon upwelling was generally strong
and in which some microbes became dominant in
some patches, other microbes in others.

It is, after all, well documented that familiar surface
bacteria are remarkable geochemical engineers,
reworking their surroundings in ways that result in the
formation of mineral crystals or even large, uniform
deposits. It is generally believed that microbes can
build concentrated deposits of a wide variety of
minerals.' For example, the bacterium Desulfovibria
produces crystals of pyrite (FeS2), greigite
(Fe3S4)1 sphalerite (ZnS), and galena (PbS).
Several kinds of bacteria produce magnetite-which,
you may recall, was found at the bottom of both of
our Siljan boreholes.

Metals enrichment in sedimentary strata is easily
explained by scenarios of microbial mediation that
remain within the surface-life paradigm. One would
simply assume, as most geologists do, that
mi crobes did their work as part of the
surface biosphere, while the sediments
were first accumulating in a river delta, the
bottom of a lake, and so forth. But metal
concentrations within veins suffusing igneous rock
resist any such explanation. These
circumstances support a microbial explanation
only if it is accepted that microbes feed on
hydrocarbons at depth-that is, only if the deep hot
biosphere theory is accepted.

Investigation of these and other possible biogenic
avenues of metal deposition has so far been
severely limited by the firm and widely held
belief that oils could have been produced
only from biological materials generated at the
surface of the earth and then buried. Biomineral-
izations that have been studied thus far are
almost exclusively concerned with the products of
surface life or of those bacterial members of the
surface biosphere that make their living in oxygen-
poor sediments just below the surface.

Regardless of whether the booty of interest to
mining companies is the work of deep-earth
hydrocarbons alone or in collaboration with microbial
efforts in the deep hot biosphere, I believe that
hydrocarbons are indeed the fluids responsible for
leaching, binding, and transporting many of the
metals. Because of their depth of origin,
hydrocarbons offer the motive power needed for
extensive leaching, and they may carry many types
of molecules so formed in solution. The major
uncertainty concerns the formation of various
organometallic, high-pressure compounds, and this
issue cannot be resolved with the information now
available. Nevertheless I believe that hydrocarbons
are the best fluids for the pumping, the leaching, and
the solubility requirements for moving metals upward
through the crust.

Is this all just fantasy? How realistic can these
speculations be, ranging as they do into important
issues of high-pressure chemistry that are as yet
unexplored? Experimentation at 40-kilobar pressure
o r greater is very difficult or very expensive.
Such experiments will not be performed until we
find a good reason for undertaking them.
Because the preponderant view in the West is that
hydrocarbons simply do not exist at depth, there has
seemed to be no reason to consider, much less
test, the idea that hydrocarbons upwelling from
great depths are the cause of concentrated
metal deposits. And this despite the strong
suggestion of a regional association of
clusters of different metal ores with petroleum. It
is my hope that the indications and proposed
explanations given here will kindle a spark of
interest in reexamining entrenched but perhaps
invalid assumptions that may otherwise delay
progress in understanding the genesis and location
of important metal deposits.
Rethinking

Earthquakes





arthquakes tell us about the violence that
exists in the interior of the earth. Very violent and
rapid events obviously occur, but the reasons for
these events are not yet fully understood, and
many apparent anomalies remain unexplained. I
believe that the deep-earth gas theory can go a
long way toward developing a new, more
comprehensive, and more useful theory of this
phenomenon.

According to the deep-earth gas theory, the earth
is continuously expelling fluids from great depths,
including juvenile volatiles issuing from the mantle.
Some of these fluids ascend as part of a stream of
liquid rock-magma-that rushes to the surface during
volcani c events. Others breach the surface in the
more continuous and sedate-but still highly visible-
fashion of mud volcanoes, which throw out mud
instead of lava. Mud volcanoes may be found in
places of ongoing volcanic activity (Iceland), in
geothermal areas with no present active volcanism
(Yellowstone), and also in relatively cool geological
provinces that support commercial oil and gas
production (southern Alaska, the oil-rich zone of the
Middle East, and the entire Indonesian arc).
Mud Volcanoes



everal types of geological features on
land surfaces, on ocean floors, and on ice fields
indicate that an emission of gases from the
ground has taken place. These features are often
found in regions in which earthquakes are
common. The largest of these are the lava
volcanoes that not only transport liquid rock to the
surface but also open channels from deep levels
through which gases can ascend. We know this
from the immense and devastating explosions
that accompany some eruptions.

A less well-known but still important land-surface
feature that is considered indicative of gas eruptions
are the mud volcanoes. Here also, gases rise into
the atmosphere from the ground, sometimes so
explosively that they carry up any soft alluvium
(mud) they encounter on their way. The eruption
initially is one of gas and mud; the gas
disappears into the atmosphere, but the mud
settles around the original orifice and dries up,
building a mountain that looks much like a lava
volcano but lacks the heat of lava. In some large
mud-volcano fields, individual volcanoes rise to a
height of several hundred meters and develop
orifices 100 meters or more in diameter. The
base of such mountains may measure several
kilometers in diameter. The emerging gases are
usually flammable, containing predominantly
methane, and in large eruptions they catch fire
spontaneously, presumably through electric
sparks caused by friction. A photograph taken
in Baku (Azerbaijan, a major region for large mud
volcanoes) shows a flame 2 kilometers high
standing above an orifice 120 meters across.'

The quantities of gas that must have emerged to
create these giant structures have been estimated,
using instrument data for the ratios of gas to mud
observed in several eruptions. The figures so
obtained far exceed the gas content of the world's
largest commercial gas fields.

If mud volcanoes are the gas emission points on
land surfaces, we must expect such points to exist
also on the ocean floors and in the large ice fields of
polar regions and high mountains. How do they
appear in these settings?

On the ocean floors, such features have been
identified in sonar investigations as circular
markings in the ocean mud. These features have
been given the name pockmarks and very large
fields of densely clustered pockmarks have been
identified.2 The individual circles may be as small as
1 meter across or as large as 200 meters. In several
instances (such as in the North Sea), they overlie
fairly accurately fields of commercial gas production,
and they show enhanced concentrations of methane
in the water above them. Pockmarks also show
depositions of crack-filling carbonate cements,
phenomenon to which I have referred already.3 It is
thought that these markings arise when sudden
expulsions of methane gas lift up a quantity of ocean
mud, which then settles back in a regular fashion on
the floor, thus leaving circular patterns. Sonar can
penetrate through some meters of ocean mud and
thus reveal levels at which similar fields of
pockmarks have become buried by later depositions
of mud. These fields are generally at a well-defined
interval of depth, which suggests that the emission
process occurred episodically, with separate events
some hundreds or thousands of years apart.
Because massive gas emissions are indicated, they
probably coincided with earthquakes.

In permafrost regions of the high latitudes,
these gas emission features exist in the form
of "ice volcanoes" or pingos. As with pockmarks,
pingos also show that episodic emissions of
gases have
brought up from deeper levels liquid water, which
then froze while flowing down the flanks of the
volcano. Because ice does not have permanent
rigidity but rather flows slowly, these features soon
disappear, and only very young pingos can be
identified.

There is good reason to investigate whether the
emission of gases in mud volcanoes, ocean
pockmarks, and pingos have some relation to
earthquakes in general, either as an effect initiated
by earthquakes or as a cause of them.
A Challenge to Earthquake Theory



1 he bulk of fluids from the deep earth
probably wend their way upward at a pace more
leisurely than that of the gases supplying mud
volcanoes. En route they create fractures mainly in
the upward direction, as the rock overburden
diminishes and becomes less resistant to gas-
pressure fracturing. (The gas is less dense than the
rock and is therefore buoyant relative to it.)
Such fractures will then serve as conduits
through the solid lithosphere. By the time these
fluids reach nearsurface pressures, most will
have become invisible gases: methane, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and perhaps hydrogen,
as well as nitrogen, helium, and various trace
gases such as radon. Seeps of crude oil
represent the visible, liquid fraction of upwelling
fluids from the deep.

The prevailing view is that earthquakes are
caused by the catastrophic release of tectonic
forces that gradually build stress in the rocks. At
some threshold value, the strength of the material is
exceeded, and a sudden shift in the rocks takes
place, producing an earthquake. Some fluids may
be emitted as a consequence of mechanically
caused fractures of the rock, but in that theory, they
play an entirely passive role.

I think that upwelling fluids from deep in the
earth, from regions of greater pressure than that
exerted by the rock overburden weight, will
have several earthquake-related effects.
Specifically, they will create fractures and
thereby change the previous stress pattern
sometimes produced by the forces of unknown
origin that are held responsible for plate tectonic
movements. A sudden influx of gas from below
will suddenly weaken the rock by creating new
fractures, and will bring it to the breaking point even
under the previously imposed stress. An inflow of
gas would also expand into the fault lines and, by
holding the faces apart, would greatly reduce the
internal friction, facilitating earthquakes in that
manner, too.

After the puff of fluid passes into the atmosphere,
the pore spaces that had been created in transit
may collapse; such a collapse offers a sound
explanation for the vertical displacement of
chunks of crust during earthquakes and for the
volumetric changes in sea floor or continental shelf
that would be needed to induce tsunamis. In the
great Alaskan earthquake of March 28, 1964, for
example, some stretches of land sank within
seconds by as much as 30 feet. Presumably
this means that the ground below suddenly
became denser. But rocks are not
compressible to such an extent, nor would such
compression occur suddenly. Pore spaces that had
expanded the rock with high-pressure gas must have
been involved, and when the gas abruptly found an
escape route, the pores collapsed. No fluid other
than a gas could have supported the rock and then
got out of the way in seconds. Similar events have
been recorded in many historical earthquakes.

The present viewpoint, popular in Western
countries, is that earthquakes are of purely tectonic
origin, caused by an increase of stresses in the rock.
But this viewpoint came into being only around the
start of the twentieth century. At about that time, the
seismograph was invented and put into use.4 Its
availability meant that earthquakes could be
investigated in fine detail from the seismic records
o b t a i ne d . Data could now be collected by
seismographs installed in places far removed from
an earthquake event, and those data would be utterly
quantitative and untainted by subjective
interpretation. The invention of the seismograph
meant that it was no longer necessary to experience
an earthquake directly, or to interview someone who
had, in order to assemble data on the event. The
opportunities offered by this new technology were
rarely supplemented by eyewitness reports. Such
r e p o r t s , which were inevitably qualitative and
tarnished by subjectivity, unfortunately were no
longer believed to hold any value for the scientific
venture. But there is much that can still be learned
from them.
Eyewitness Accounts



hen eyewitness accounts are reported
today, they are very similar to those that were
gathered and recorded over the course of many
centuries. The similarity of reports far removed in
geography and time confirms their veracity.
Eruptions, flames, noises, odors, asphyxiation,
fountains of water and mud-all these are recurrent
themes today, just as they were in antiquity. The
earthquakes surely did not change their character.
Only the investigators shifted their attention.

My colleague Dr. Steven Soter has collected
historical written records published in various
countries of eyewitness accounts of phenomena
associated with major earthquakes from antiquity to
modern times.5 Here I shall present a smattering of
some of the more interesting, but nevertheless wholly
representative, examples. These will help to
illuminate why earthquakes can best be understood
as outgassing phenomena, within the framework of
the deep-earth gas theory.

Earthquakes in Greece and Italy are fairly
common, and many references to them are made in
the classical literature of Greece and Rome. At that
time, volcanoes and earthquakes were the only
sources of information about the deeper ground of
the earth. What was down there was imagined to be
rather terrifying, and for this reason alone, these
phenomena attracted a lot of attention.

Aristotle, whose classical writings and authority
dominated explanations of natural events in the
West for 1800 years-sometimes with
correct and sometimes with incorrect theories-
provided the first detailed discussion of the
earthquake process. According to him, the theory
that gases ("air") were
responsible for earthquakes was first proposed by
Anaxagoras, who said that "the air, whose natural
motion is upward, causes earthquakes when it is
trapped in hollows beneath the earth." In A.D. 63,
Seneca wrote a review of the earthquake literature
o f the time, stressing that "It is a favorite theory of
most of the greatest authorities that moving air is the
cause of earthquakes."

Why did the ancients favor air (or gas, as we
would call it today) as the active element in
earthquakes? For one thing, they posited a close
connection between seismic and volcanic
phenomena. They believed that volcanic eruptions,
which clearly involve gas, provided an outlet for the
forces that would otherwise generate earthquakes.
The presence of subterranean air was generally
accepted in antiquity. Seneca, for example, had "no
doubt that a great quantity of air lies within the
underground."

Despite much confusion about the action of
underground gases, there appears to have been a
strong observational basis for the theory. The
ancients could not, of course, have known that the
"air" emanating from below entailed some inert
gases that we today call carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
and helium, but they would have been well aware of
the physical manifestations of eruptions of invisible
vapors, such as sediments flung upward from the
ground. The ancients could not have dis tinguished
the several flammable gases that we now classify as
methane, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen-some of
which, when seeping out at rates and under
conditions not susceptible to combustion, would also
have caused visible hazes in the atmosphere, or
fogs along the ground, as well as asphyxiations of
animals. But the ancients were well aware of
these physical manifestations of eruptions of
invisible vapors, and they looked on, in horror, as
flammable gases ignited (being lit, we now
know, by electrostatic sparks caused by the
friction of fast- moving grains against the rock).
The accumulated observations maintained in
folklore and contemplated by the intelligentsia of the
time meant that the ancients recognized a variety of
phenomena that seemed to serve well as warnings
of an impending quake. In some ways, folklore is of
more practical value to residents of earthquake-
prone regions than is our modern science.
Pausanias, in his description of Achaia, noted that
"in winter the temperature in the region in which the
earthquake will occur will suddenly rise. In summer
there is a tendency to form a haze, and the sun
presents an unusual color.... Springs of water
generally dry up; great flames dart across the sky....
Furthermore, there is a violent rumbling of winds
beneath the earth."

The rise in temperature in winter, as a precursor
of an earthquake, has been noted in many historical
reports. The outgassing theory explains the rise in
this way: All the pore-space gases from shallow
levels in the ground are the first to be expelled at the
surface; having a temperature near the annual mean,
as in the ground at shallow levels, they will generally
be warmer than the surface temperature in winter. In
summer earthquake gas will still be detectable,
because it brings up some microscopic particles as
well as an enriched proportion of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide and other heavy gases will tend to
hug the ground and seep into valleys, producing an
unusual fog. (The wintertime fog would be dominated
by the condensation of water droplets, because
upwelling gases are saturated with water vapor by
the time they enter colder surface air.) These
phenomena have been recorded throughout
historical times and, as we shall see, were
instrumental in the successful evacuation of a
Chinese city just before a disastrous quake.

"This is earthquake weather" was the remark a
local guide in eastern Turkey made to a
startled American seismologist visiting this
earthquake- prone region. A strong quake followed
within hours. Evidently this local guide had seen
such earthquake
fog before, and his ability to predict an imminent
quake was better than that of the sophisticated
instruments deployed for just this purpose.

In Roman times many writers expressed
great interest in earthquakes and collected reports
about the attendant phenomena. Pliny
discusses precursory effects in his Natural History,
noting that one sign of an impending earthquake is
that "water in wells is muddier and has a somewhat
foul smell." He goes on to speculate that caves
afforded "an outlet for the confined breath" and that
where caves were not a natural endowment of
the landscape, constructed tunnels were helpful in
dissipating the upwelling air. "Buildings
pierced by frequent c o nd ui t s for drainage
are less shaken," he concluded, as are those
"erected over vaults."

Seneca noted that before an earthquake, "a
roaring noise is usually heard from winds that are
creating a disturbance underground." He went on to
observe that "often when an earthquake occurs, if
only some part of the earth is broken open, a wind
blows from there for several days, as happened-
according to reports-in the earthquake which Chalcis
suffered." Seneca was moved to write his work on
earthquakes by a seismic shock that wrecked
Pompeii sixteen years before the even greater
disaster of the eruption of Vesuvius. I reproduce
here one peculiar detail Seneca offered, which today
we would explain as having been caused by an
upwelling stream of vapors rich in carbon dioxide.

I have said that a flock of hundreds of sheep was
killed in the Pompeian district.... The very
atmosphere there, which is stagnant, ... is harmful
to those breathing it. Or, when it has been tainted
by the poison of the internal fires and is sent out
from its long stay, it stains and pollutes this pure,
clear atmosphere and offers new types of
disease to those who breathe the unfamiliar air....
I am not surprised that sheep have been infected-
sheep which have a delicate constitution-the
closer they carried their heads to the ground,
since they received the afflatus of the tainted air
near the ground itself. If the air had come out in
greater quantity it would have harmed people too;
but the abundance of pure air extinguished it
before it rose high enough to be breathed by
people.
Seneca sought an explanation for the series of
aftershocks that occurred in the Pompeii
earthquake, which were felt for several days
throughout Campania. He concluded that not all the
air had been expelled in the initial eruption but rather
that some was still wandering around underground,
even though the greater part had been emitted.

Isaac Newton also subscribed to the view that
earthquakes were connected with gases. He wrote
that "sulfurous streams abound in the bowels of the
earth and ferment with minerals, and sometimes
take fire with a sudden coruscation and explosion,
and if pent up in subterraneous caverns, burst the
caverns with a great shaking of the earth, as in
springing of a mine." Also noteworthy is that the first
edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1771
contained this entry: "Earthquake: in natural history,
a violent agitation or trembling of some considerable
part of the earth, generally attended with a terrible
noise like thunder, and sometimes with an eruption
of fire, water, wind."

John Michell, a brilliant scientist of the eighteenth
century, made a major contribution to the
understanding of earthquakes. He identified a type
of earthquake disturbance consisting of slow, ocean-
like waves that could actually be observed moving
along the surface of the ground. These
"visible waves" cannot be explained in terms of
elastic wave motion, which would be much faster,
and there is not much discussion of them in
modern seismological texts. Michell attempted to
explain the waves in terms of an eruption of
vapor, and that may indeed be the best
explanation. What would happen if a burst of
high-pressure gas from a depth of many
kilometers, and therefore with a pressure of
thousands of atmospheres, were suddenly released
through fissures in the bedrock into a region beneath
a relatively impervious layer of soil that is not
brittle enough to develop fissures? Michell
reasoned as follows:

Suppose a large cloth, or carpet (spread upon a
floor), to be raised at one edge, and then
suddenly brought down again to the floor; the air
under it, being by this means propelled, will pass
along, till it escapes at the

opposite side, raising the cloth in a wave all the
way as it goes. In like manner, a large quantity of
vapor may be conceived to raise the earth in a
wave, as it passes along between the strata,
which it may easily separate in a horizontal
direction, there being ... little or no cohesion
between one stratum and another.'
Evidence for the phenomenon of visible waves in
numerous earthquakes in ancient and modern times
is indisputable. Where an earthquake is felt both on
exposed basement rock and on alluvial fill, the
visible waves are reported on the alluvium only.
Alluvium is the sorted, and in places very fine,
sediments deposited in the flood plain of a large
river or in tidal mud flats. The fine-grained nature of
the moist sediments easily traps upwelling gases for
a time, and the suppleness of the muddy material
enables a good deal of displacement to occur
without fracturing. In many cases, large
displacements of these waves across stretches of
alluvium seem to have wrought more destruction
than the sharp shocks of the quake. It is likely that the
blanket of alluvial sediments is genuinely lifted off the
basement rock by upwelling gases, making it subject
to flexural gravity waves, just like the carpet in
Michell's example.

Michell's attention was directed to earthquakes as
a result of the disastrous one that struck Lisbon in
1755, and he drew from a large number of
eyewitness accounts that appear to link these
earthquakes with gas. He writes about the flames
from the earth and the peculiar fog that
accompanied the Lisbon earthquake. Michell also
describes precursor phenomena in Jamaica and
New England that occurred two or three days before
earthquake events; the waters of wells became
muddy and developed a sulfurous odor.

Moving into the nineteenth century, I will mention a
powerful earthquake that struck a section of the
United States and for which conventional theory
offers no good explanation. That earthquake was
actually one of a series of major and many
minor quakes that occurred over a period of
several months during the winter of 1811-1812. The
site was New Madrid, along the west bank of the
Mississippi River in the southeastern corner
of Missouri. Significantly, from the standpoint of
the upwelling theory of coal (and swamp) formation
presented in Chapter 5, much of the
disturbance there was expressed in the area
known as the St. Francis swamps. Surface
phenomena that accompanied this quake were
reported in detail in the 1858 Annual Report of
the Smithsonian Institution.

On the 16th day of December, 1811, at two
o'clock in the morning, the inhabitants of New
Madrid were aroused from their slumbers by a
deep rumbling noise like many thunders in the
distance, accompanied with a violent vibratory or
oscillating movement of the earth from the
southwest to the northeast, so violent at times that
men, women, and children caught hold of the
nearest objects to prevent falling to the ground.

It was dangerous to stay in their dwellings, for
fear these dwellings might collapse and bury
them in their ruins; it was dangerous to be out in
the open air, for large trees would be breaking off
their tops by the violence of the shocks, and
continually falling to the earth, or the earth itself
opening in dark, yawning chasms, or fissures,
and belching forth muddy water, large lumps of
blue clay, coal, and sand, and when the
violence
of the shocks were over, moaned and slept,
again gathering power for a more violent
commotion.

On this day twenty-eight distinct shocks were
counted, all coming from the southwest and
passing to the northeast, while the fissures would
run in an opposite direction, or from the northwest
to the southeast.

[The Pemiseo River] ran a southeast course, and
probably was either a tributary of the St. Francis
or lost itself in those swamps. This river blew up
for a distance of nearly fifty miles, the bed entirely
destroyed.... The earth, in these explosions,
would open in fissures from forty to eighty rods
[660 to 1320 feet] in length and from three to five
feet in width; their depth none knew, as no one
had strength of nerve sufficient to fathom them,
and the sand and earth would slide in or water run
in, and soon partially fill them up.

Large forest trees which stood in the track of
these chasms would be split from root to branch,
the courses of streams changed, the bottoms of
lakes be pushed up from beneath and form dry
land, dry land blew up, settled down, and formed
lakes of dark, muddy water.

Where the traveled, beaten road ran one day, on
the next might be found some large fissure
crossing it, half filled with muddy, torpid water. It
was dangerous to travel after dark, for no one
knew the changes which an hour might effect in
the face of the country, and yet so general was
the terror that men, women, and children fled to
the highlands to avoid being engulfed in one
common grave. One family, in their efforts to
reach the highlands by a road they all were well
acquainted with, unexpectedly came to the
borders of an extensive lake; the land had
sunk, and water had flowed over it or gushed up
out of the earth and formed a new lake. The
opposite shore they felt confident could not be
far distant, and they traveled on in tepid water,
from twelve to forty inches in depth, of a
temperature of 100
degrees, or over blood heat, at times of a warmth
to be uncomfortable, for the distance of four or
five miles, and reached the highlands in safety.

On the 8th of February, 1812, the day on which
the severest shocks took place, the shocks
seemed to go in waves, like the waves of the
sea, throwing down brick chimneys level with the
ground and two brick dwellings in New Madrid,
and yet, with all its desolating effects, but one
person was thought to have been lost in these
commotions. A family of the name of Curran were
moving from New Madrid to an old French
town on the Arkansas River, called the
Port; had passed the St. Francis swamps and
found some of their cattle missing; Le Roy, the
youngest son, took an Indian pony, rode back to
hunt them, and was in the swamp when the
first shock took place, was never seen
afterwards, and was supposed to have been
lost in some of those fearful chasms.
The Smithsonian report of the New Madrid
earthquake also describes some interesting
phenomena (including precursor phenomena) that
are unquestionably associated with gas emanations.

The morning after the first shock, as some men
were crossing the Mississippi, they saw a black
substance floating on the river, in strips four or
five rods [66-82 ft] in breadth by twelve or
fourteen rods in length [198-231 ft], resembling
soot from some immense chimney, or the cinders
from some gigantic stove-pipe. It was so thick
that the water could not be seen under it. On the
Kentucky side of the river there empties into the
Mississippi River two small streams, one called
the Obine, the other the Forked Deer. Lieutenant
Robinson, a recruiting officer in the United States
army, visited that part of Kentucky lying between
those two rivers in 1812, and states that he found
numberless little mounds thrown up in the earth,
and where a stick or a broken limb of a tree lay
across these mounds they were all burnt in two
pieces, which went to prove to the people that
these commotions were caused by some internal
action of fire.

About four miles above Paducah, on the Ohio
River, on the Illinois side, on a post-oak flat, a
large circular basin was formed, more than one
hundred feet in diameter, by the sinking of the
earth, how deep no one can tell, as the tall stately
post-oaks sank below the tops of the tallest trees.
The sink filled with water, and continues so to this
time.
Even today, nearly two centuries later, some of
these mounds and sinkholes can still be seen.
Most conspicuous is the feature called "sand
blows," which are funnel-shaped depressions in
the alluvial ground, where sand below the soils
and clays was blown up and out (Figure 8.1). It is
worrisome to note that other sand blows can be
found in the region, and their present vegetation
indicates that these blows developed some three
hundred years earlier. The New Madrid
earthquake of recorded history was therefore not
the first. What might the future hold?

Turning to the twentieth century, we find that many
fa s c i na t i ng (and some undoubtedly credible)
eyewitness reports of the great San Francisco
earthquake of 1906 and numerous other
earthquakes have been filed, especially in the
popular press, and that these include accounts of the
same sorts of gas-related phenomena. Among the
most interesting is a report of the earthquake that
ravaged the Hai-cheng region of northeastern
China in 1975. This story is particularly
fascinating because Hai-cheng was successfully
evacuated two hours before the 7.3 magnitude
quake struck. How could it have been predicted?

Liao-ling Province Meteorological Station
reported that in the weeks preceding this
earthquake, the air temperature in the vicinity of the
Hai-cheng fault was higher than in the surrounding
region. This difference increased at an accelerating
rate up to the day before the quake, when the
differential reached a full 10C. According to the
report filed by the meteorological station,

During the month before the quake, a gas with an
extraordinary smell appeared in the areas
including Tantung and Liao-yang. This was
termed "earth gas" by the people... one person
fainted because of this.... Many areas were
covered with a peculiar fog (termed "earth gas
fog" by the people) just prior to the quake. The
height of the fog was only two to three meters. It
was very dense, of white and black color, non-
uniform, stratified, and also had a peculiar smell.
It started to appear one to two hours before the
quake, and it was so dense that the stars were
obscured by it. It dissipated rapidly after the
quake. The area where this "earth gas fog"
appeared was related to the fault area
responsible for the earthquake.8
Apparently these qualitative phenomena,
combined with the temperature data recorded at the
meteorological post, were taken seriously enough to
prompt an evacuation before the earthquake struck.

"Earth gas fog" that streams out at a sufficiently
high rate and under conditions unfavorable to
mixing can kill. In 1986 a gas cloud (thought to
have been largely carbon dioxide) emerged from
Lake Nyos, a volcanic lake in Cameroon, West
Africa. Some 1700 people and 3000 cattle died
from asphyxiation. Helium isotope data
demonstrated that the gas had upwelled from
mantle depth.9 Three years later, testi ng
indicated that the lake was rebuilding its carbon
dioxide stores. Presumably, another disaster will
strike at some time in the future.













Figure 8.1 Sand vents (blows) similar to those at
New Madrid have been seen in locations of
several other strong earthquakes. This photo is
of such a fomation at the site of a strong
earthquake in India on June 12, 1897. Photo by
R. D. Oldham.
Gas discharges from the earth that occur just prior
to an earthquake may be too slight to be sensed by
humans but may nevertheless be noticed by animals,
either by their sense of smell or when asphyxiating
gases fill underground burrows. Strange animal
behavior is included in many reports of precursor
events. Perhaps the earliest such description
pertains to the earthquake that destroyed the
Greek cities of Helike and Bura on the southern
coast of the Gulf of Corinth in the winter of 374-
73 e.c. The Roman writer Aelian (circa A.D. 200),
in his book On the Characteristics of Animals,
tells the following
remarkable story:

For five days before Helike disappeared, all the
mice and martens and snakes and centipedes
and beetles and every other creature of that kind
in the town left in a body by the road that leads to
Carynea. And the people of Helike, seeing this
happening, were filled with amazement, but were
unable to guess the reason. But after the
aforesaid creatures had departed, an earthquake
occurred in the night; the town collapsed; and an
i mme ns e wave poured over it, and
Helike disappeared.
Aelian's rather quaint description of an organized
exodus of the town's vermin is no doubt an
exaggeration. He was, after all, writing nearly six
centuries after the events described, which was
more than enough time for the story to take on the
embellishments of folklore. Nonetheless, I believe
that this story was not simply dreamed up. Rather, it
seems likely that some highly unusual disturbance of
grounddwelling creatures made an impression on
the people of Helike before the earthquake and
tsunami destroyed their city. We now know of
hundreds of accounts of animals behaving in a
similar fashion prior to earthquakes. Such reports
come from sources as remote from one another in
space and time as ancient Greece and modern
China.

A recent example is an account from an
eyewitness to the catastrophic Tangshan (China)
earthquake of July 1976. The account's author and
his companions were all intellectuals in a "re-
education program" at a state-owned farm outside
Tangshan. The time of the strange animal behavior
was around midnight, some four hours before the
earthquake.

We were telling stories in the dormitory when out
of the large dorm opposite ours burst hundreds of
rats. Back and forth they swarmed, many
scrambling five or six feet up the walls until they
lost hold. All we could do was watch until
they
finally vanished into the darkness. As we
pondered this in amazement, the sound of
thousands of excited hens and roosters reached
our ears. There was a poultry farm nearby, but
nobody had recalled ever hearing the roosters
crow at night. None of us knew that this queer
animal behavior foretold the coming of an
earthquake.10
Though filled with amazement-like the people of
Helike twentythree centuries before-the Tangshan
witness and his companions were apparently not
well versed in folklore. They went to bed, and a few
hours later some of them were killed when their
dormitory collapsed. Regionally, more than 200,000
people perished.
Earthquake Spots and Earth Mounds



ome places are distinguished not by violent
earthquakes in recorded history but by an
ever- present low level of quake activity.
These earthquake spots present surface
features and precursor phenomena that
strongly support the upwelling-gas theory of
earthquakes.

There is an earthquake spot about 12 kilometers
in diameter in northern Norway, where for a long time
visitors could be all but guaranteed to experience at
least one tremor a day. These tremors were weak
earthquakes, just barely discernible to human
senses. But they could not be explained in the
usual way. No fault line was present to which
ground slippage might be attributed. The ground
just kept shak ing. A very similar story comes from
two places in the United States. One earthquake
spot active in recent years is on the western tip of
Flathead Lake in Montana. The other, which has
been active for at least eighty years, is in Enola,
Arkansas.

Earthquake spots can in no way be explained in
the usual fashion; they are clearly not born of
plates shearing against one another. Earthquake
spots are distant from active tectonic structures.
There are no plunging plates of ocean bottom or
slide-slipping continental blocks nearby.
Moreover, the quake activity is confined to
small areas. These are isolated spots, not
expansive regions of ground tremors.

I believe that earthquake spots are best
explained-indeed, can only be explained-by the
upwelling-gas theory. Upwelling spurts of light
hydrocarbons, especially methane, along with
associated gases such as carbon dioxide, force
their way up from great depths, causing fractures in
the rock to open and shut repeatedly, marking the
passage of these pressurized fluids. Both empirical
and theoretical considerations have compelled me
to draw this conclusion.

Another North American earthquake spot is found
on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, within a
meteorite impact structure called Charlevoix. A large
meteorite struck there some 350 million years ago,
creating a circle of about the same size (and age) as
the Siljan Ring in Sweden. As with Siljan, the meteor
hit a region of ancient granitic rock; Charlevoix is
within the geological province known as the
Canadian Shield. Some tremors that can be felt
occur at Charlevoix every few days, and micro-
quakes are registered very frequently. In this
case, proximity to fault lines, including the major fault
line of the St. Lawrence River, complicates the
discussion somewhat, because one might attribute
the quakes to rock slippage along the fault (rather
than, as I shall suggest, to gas emanations
working their way upward through the fault).
Nevertheless, the concentration of the
seismic activity within the confines of the impact
structure is quite evident.

I visited Charlevoix on several occasions
beginning in 1988-not because of Charlevoix's
frequent and anomalous earthquakes but because
this impact site was a virtual twin to that of Sweden's
Siljan Ring, which had been the focus of my attention
for the previous five years (see Chapter 6). On my
first visit, I discovered that the two sites share a most
intriguing feature: earth mounds. In Charlevoix,
clusters of rounded, steep-sided hills rise abruptly
out of an alluvial plain. These mounds are from 2 to
15 meters in height and up to 70 meters or so in
horizontal dimensions. They are composed internally
just of the clay and sand of the local alluvium, and no
satisfactory account of their origin has been
proposed."

Two years before my visit to Charlevoix, Marshall
Held, a research associate in my department at
Cornell, had witnessed the same earth feature. In
1986 he visited the earthquake spot near Enola,
Arkansas, renting an airplane to survey the area
from above. To his amazement he saw (and
photographed) a dense cluster of mounds in an
otherwise smooth alluvial plain. It would be a strange
coincidence if earthquakes and mounds were
unrelated effects and yet occurred together within a
patch of only a few kilometers in Enola, Charlevoix,
and other earthquake spots.


Figure 8.2 Earth mounds at a golf course in
Charlevoix, Canada.
Methane emanating from such mounds supports
the theory that, at least in these instances, puffs of
upwelling gases are the cause of persistent tremors.
The Charlevoix mounds must have formed between
the end of the last Ice Age (the glaciers would have
scraped away any mound) and development of the
golf course. They may, in fact, be representative of
larger features-mud volcanoes (discussed earlier)-
that are also strongly related to earthquake activity.
The mounds at the earthquake spots in Charlevoix
and Enola may have been produced in a similar
way to the mud volcanoes, just on a smaller scale.
Some of them have visible holes on top, and in
some cases there is evidence that the
ground has deformed in recent times: Trees
growing on the sides of the mounds all lean
outward from the vertical axis. In contrast to mud
volcanos, the form of these earth mounds suggests
that sediments may have been bulged into place
from below rather than spewed out at the top. In
either case, upwelling gases would be the most
likely cause, especially in view of the present gas
seepages.
Upwelling Deep Gas
as the Cause of Earthquakes

7=1 he Western scientific view is that
earthquakes are caused by the same kinds of
tectonic stresses that are believed to have shuffled
massive blocks of continental and oceanic plates in
the course of time. This assumption, coupled with
the preference for data collected by precise and
impersonal seismographs, means that eyewitness
accounts like those cited earlier are usually of little
interest to Western scientists, and their existence is
not even known by many seismologists. In China,
Japan, and the Soviet Union, however, much more
attention is paid to gas phenomena. Japan even
has a "Laboratory of Earthquake Chemistry." The
United States is far behind in this field, not because
it lacks the technology, but because it took a wrong
turn some time ago and is not open to a change in
course.

Surely, however, the citizens of earthquake-prone
regions will be more concerned with obtaining a
timely warning than with taking sides in a scientific
controversy. Observations of the activity of
subsurface gases-such as changes in ground-water
levels in water wells and changes in gas
composition or pressure above a water table-are
simple and comparatively inexpensive to make, and
they can be obtained objectively. To my mind, it is
high time that California and the Central Mississippi
region acquire the knowledge and experience in this
fi eld that will make meaningful prediction possible.
Instrumentation operated by scientists should be one
aspect of an early-warning system; public
earthquake education and a reporting network
should be another. In tandem, the two would
ensure the widest possible coverage for the
observation of the many phenomena-
qualitative as well as
quantitative-that may be relevant for predictions.

The public-safety issues are too important for
research to be limited to only one of two reasonable
explanatory paradigms. I suspect that over time, it
will be shown that both views have relevance. The
o l d theory (which I wish to resuscitate) that
earthquakes are caused by the movement and
eruption of gases can be melded with the modern
theory of crustal block movements. Together they
would give a much better explanation of all the
phenomena than either theory can do alone.

Thus earthquakes may best be understood in
terms of a combination of strain in the rocks and
upwelling fluids.12 The build-up of strain in different
rocks would occur unevenly in different locations and
at different depths. But the strain theory alone
cannot account for all earthquakes, especially
those that occur at great depth. Rocks deeper
than about 60 kilometers flow plastically, rather
than breaking suddenly when a critical stress is
exceeded. The internal friction opposing shear
flow is greater than any mechanical strength. Yet
earthquakes are known to occur at depths down to
700 kilometers, deep into the mantle. A recent
quake (June 8, 1994) of magnitude 8.2 on the
Richter scale was recorded, deriving from a
depth of 600 kilometers below Boli vi a. Clearly
another process, not simply the shearing of
plates, must be going on down there. Finding the
cause of that process may be the key to
understanding all earthquakes.

In my view, only the presence and rapid flow of
large quantities of gas can be responsible for
canceling out the internal friction at depth. At
shallower levels, the invasion of gases from below
support and open cracks, thus abruptly weakening
the brittle rock. As its ultimate strength decreases,
the rock reaches the failure point, and an earthquake
occurs. The same mass of fluid may continue to
generate earthquakes in its upward travels, as layer
upon layer of less permeable rock is encountered,
compromised, and then broken. It is not therefore an
increase in the stress of the region that brings
about the earthquake, but rather a sudden
decrease in the strength of the rock.

It is not surprising, then, that little evidence can be
found through the measurement of strain preceding
a major quake. Nothing noteworthy will have
happened at the time to the stress field other than
the inflation of pore spaces. A bulging of the surface
upward might be measurable, but bulging is difficult
to observe except at the seashore (where it has
indeed sometimes been noticed as a precursor), or
i n recent times with the Global Positioning System.
Such an inflation may introduce very little horizontal
deformation on or near the surface that would be
detected on strain gauges. If the regions that are
inflated are large, even tilt observations will not
offer much. On the other hand, the direct gas-
related phenomena may be plainly in evidence
over the entire region under which the gas has
distributed itself.

What precisely should we look for? Leakage of
gas driven through small pore spaces by an
underlying larger mass of gas will be the first
evidence that can be observed. At shallow
levels, this could be signaled by disturbances of the
ground water and consequent changes in the
electric currents this ground water carries and
also by changes in the composition of the
gas as components from deeper levels are
brought up. Unusual noises may ensue. There
may even be measurable changes of seismic
velocities as pore spaces increase in number and
size and the rock is thereby made more
compressible. And yes, we should keep a
watchful eye out for erratic behavior in our
companion animals, whose noses are more
sensitive than ours, and in the animals that dwell in
burrows and tunnels beneath the surface, where the
composition of the gases may suddenly change and
become unsuitable for supporting animal life (Figure
8.3).
Figure 8.3 Upwelling fluids as the cause of
earthquakes. Fluids liberated from the earth's
original store of gases, including hydrocarbons
at a depth of perhaps 150 kilometers, create
pore spaces in the surrounding matrix of hot rock
(1). Because the rock at such depths is hot
enough to deform plastically, pore spaces
distend, often gradually and without sending out
the shocks of an earthquake (2). But the
instability of the light fluids in the denser rocks is
not





















Improved methods for earthquake prediction are
thus one benefit we may garner from the upwelling-
gas theory of earthquake origins. We cannot,
however, expect this theory to attract much attention
among earthquake specialists until the foundationl
deep-earth gas theory is more widely entertained.
As noted in Chapter 7, the deep-earth gas theory
and perhaps its companion, the deep hot biosphere
theory, may open up new paths for understanding
how valuable mineral deposits are formed. Earlier
chapters presented the profound changes in
petroleum geology that such a new paradigm
would demand, along with the profound changes
it would necessitate in our understanding of life
within the earth. The final two chapters will
explore more speculative implications of the two
theories. How might the deep-earth gas and
deep hot biosphere perspectives alter our scientific
views of the origin of earth life? And what do
these two linked theories mean for our chance of
encountering life elsewhere in the solar system?

Figure 8.3 (continued)
relieved (3, 4), and the fluids are driven farther
upward. At shallower levels where the rock is
harder and no longer plastic (dark band in 5), the
fluids cause brittle fracture of the rock. Small
cracks induced by fluid pressure develop and
grow, weakening the rock. As its ultimate
strength decreases, the rock eventually reaches
the failure point, and this causes the earthquake.
It was not any critical rise in the stress of the rock
that was the immediate cause of the quake;
rather, rapid weakening of the strength of the
rock initiated the quake (7). Gas that is present
in a wider region around the epicenter, and that
did not escape at the time of the event, continues
to weaken other rocks until they also give way.
This explains the usual widening area of
aftershocks. SOURCE: After Thomas Gold and
Steven Soter, 1980. "The deep-earth gas
hypothesis," Scientific American 242: 154-61.
Tfi e Origin of Life




he earth supports not one but two large
realms of life: surface life fed by photosynthesis,
which is familiar to us all, and deep life, fed by
chemical energy that has penetrated up from below.
W e have only just begun to explore the inhabitants
and the reach of the deep realm. I suspect that until
microbes drawn up from the deep are perceived as
representatives of a wholly distinctive biosphere,
rather than as isolated and ingenious adaptations of
surface life pushing back the frontiers of habitability,
research on deep life will remain sparse and largely
unheralded. If the shift in perspective does take
place, however, a veritable explosion of new ideas
will surely permeate two of the most speculative yet
philosophically engaging issues in science: the
origin of life and the prospects for extraterrestrial
life.

Detailed chemical analysis shows that
expressions of life in the surface realm and in the
deep realm almost certainly have a common
derivation, because both have the same genetic
system. Whether the shared genetic system is due
to a common panspermia-the transport of biological
materials from other astronomical bodies to the
earth-or, alternatively, life arose in one of the two
realms on this planet and then evolved adaptations
that enabled it to populate the other, we do not yet
know for certain.

If the origin of earth life was in fact terrestrial, then
we would want to determine in which of the two
realms it originated. One way to begin this inquiry is
to search for dependencies between the two realms.
Contact between the surface and the deep is certain
to have been present, but contact is very different
from dependence. If we can find evidence of such a
dependence of one realm on the other, but not of
their codependence, we will have a strong case for
arguing that life arose in the independent realm and
later spread to the dependent realm. But if no
distinctive dependence can be found, then we
must seek some other considerations that might
indicate in which direction evolution had gone.

There is (as yet) no evidence on the nature of that
sequence or on the relationship these two realms
have had with each other over time. They may be
essentially independent of one another at present. If
all the photosynthetic surface life were to disappear,
for example, the deep subsurface life might continue
essentially as before. Similarly, if for some reason
deep life were to disappear, we know of no reason
w h y this would have much impact on the
photosynthetic surface life-at least in the short term.
(It might make a difference in the long term, because
there may occasionally be beneficial exchanges of
geneti c material between the microbial life at depth
and the surface life.)
The Habitability of Surface
and Subsurface Realms



fruitful way to approach the question of
the origin of life is to compare the habitability of the
two realms. The surface life we know is enormously
rich because of the large amount of energy that the
sun has provided to photosynthetic microbes and,
eons later, to photosynthetic algae and land plants.
These organisms have evolved sophisticated
apparatus for converting solar energy into chemical
forms, on which they and the rest of the food
chain of the surface biosphere then
depend. Photosynthesizers have adapted to the
absence of energy during the night and during
seasonally lengthened nights at high latitudes.
From time to time, surface life must cope with a
far more severe problem: blockage of sunlight for
periods of months or more in the aftermath of
severe volcanic eruptions and occasional
impacts of large asteroids. Microbes can
wait out these catastrophes in a quiescent
state, but global populations of macroflora
and fauna may be severely challenged by
these events, resulting in large extinctions.

Is the energy supply that supports the deep hot
biosphere subject to the same risk of change and
blockage? We do not know how steady and long-
lasting upwelling streams of hydrocarbons are in any
particular location, but I suspect there would be great
constancy over millions of years. Any disruption is
unlikely to affect the entire subsurface realm of the
planet all at once. Moreover, because the deep
biosphere (with the exception of life at the
borderlands, such as oceanic vents) is entirely
microbial, long enforced periods of quiescence
may be no great challenge. Then, too, impacts of
large
asteroids may have devastated the surface,
especially before 3.8 billion years ago. But such
impacts may actually have benefited the subsurface
biosphere by opening up new cracks for
hydrocarbons to upwell, allowing microbial life to
flourish.

How do the two realms compare in temperature
suitability for life? As explained in Chapter 2,
temperatures that would boil water at the earth's
surface are easily tolerated by microbes at depth,
because high pressure substantially raises the
boiling point of water. Liquid water is thus available
at depth over a wider range of temperatures than it
is on the surface of the earth. With the exception of
areas of active volcanism, the temperature gradient
of the subsurface earth holds steady at any given
depth; there is no "weather" below the surface and
no glacial episodes or boiling water. This is in sharp
contrast to conditions on the surface-particularly on
land-where enormous temperature shifts may occur
seasonally and even daily. For the surface to have
r e m a i ne d habitable over the long course of
geological time, temperatures must have remained
within a narrow band conducive to water remaining
liquid at the pressure offered by the earth's
atmosphere.

A great advantage for life at depth is the
protection the rocks offer from the harsh ionizing
radiations both from the sun and from space. We
surface creatures tend to forget that surface life has
evolved protective coatings and pigments to ward off
harmful solar radiations, as well as DNA-repair
mechanisms to undo the damage inflicted by solar
a n d cosmic radiations that cannot be completely
avoided. But none of these adaptations would have
been available to the very first life forms-to the very
first attempts at cellular life. In contrast, subsurface
condi ti ons offer a much more agreeable situation.
There is no need at depth for complex molecules to
defend themselves against the radiations that
bombard the surface. It is true that hard
ionizing
radiations would also exist below as a result of
the
radioactive decay of potassium, uranium, and
thorium. These radiations, however, would suffuse
the rocks at a much lower rate than that experienced
on the surface, and the radiations would hold steady
over long periods.

Finally, the most important difference between the
deep hot biosphere and the surface biosphere as
realms for the origin of life is the abundance of
primordial energy upwelling from below-and, just as
important, from a depth so distant that the
source itself is inaccessible to life. Remember that
the first living cell could not have performed
the feat of photosynthesis. On the surface, a
large chemical energy supply would thus commence
only after some organisms had developed the
complex actions of photosynthesis. Before then,
the spontaneous assembly of molecules that
can undergo energy- yielding reactions would have
been a rare event, and concentration of such
molecules into a "primordial soup," perhaps
sloshing around in a tide pool, would have been
even rarer. Should a self-maintaining and
selfreproducing system of complex molecules have
arisen in such circumstances, what would have
happened to this pioneering form of "life" when all
the food was used up at the exponential rates at
which living systems reproduce? It is not clear how
this "feast and famine" situation could have been
avoided before the advent of photosynthesis or how
a long and detailed evolutionary process could have
been sustained.

For this reason alone, the subsurface is the more
likely location for the early phases of life if the deep-
earth gas theory is valid. Hydrocarbon fluids
streaming up from below, and originating at depths
far too hot for carbon-based life to reach and
plunder, might have offered sustenance at a steady,
metered rate for long periods. This scenario would
provide ideal conditions for life to arise and flourish.
Later, the same conditions would have allowed
microbial life to develop a range of chemical
abilities. Motile adventurers at the outer edge of the
subsurface realm-perhaps in the vicinity of vents on
the deep ocean floormight have developed heat-
sensing pigments by which to orient themselves
toward the energy-rich vent, thus preventing their
being carried away into the barren, cold ocean. It
has been suggested that the first important step
toward photosynthesis was orientation and
na vi g a ti o n by the sensing of heat radiation.'
Photosynthesis would have followed if some
microbes found it advantageous to live at or near the
surface and to enrich their energy sources by the use
of sunlight.

Going in the other direction, from surface to deep
life, I cannot see a similarly favorable situation.
Photosynthesis would have to develop, as a
very early step, from an evolution dependent on
some unspeci fi ed form of chemical energy
becoming available continuously on the
surface. The progression would then have to take
the form of an i nvasi on of the subsurface, the
development of an ability to use the chemical
energy sources available there, and an
accommodation to the elevated temperatures
and extreme pressures of that realm.

The subsurface realm, for a number of theoretical
reasons, therefore appears to be the more likely site
for the initial development of this curious and
extremely elaborate chemical processing that we
call life. Pressure and temperature conditions in the
subsurface are steadier and generally more
conducive to life than are surface conditions.
Subsurface life would not only have tolerated large
asteroid impacts but would probably have benefited
from the disruption. Radiations harmful to life would
have been greatly reduced at depth. Finally,
accordi ng to deep-gas theory, chemical energy
would have been abundant and supplied as a
metered flow.

Empirical support for the subsurface realm as the
locus for life's origin takes the form of many recent
taxonomic analyses that identify hyperthermophilic
archaea and bacteria as the most "deeply
rooted"the most ancient-life forms. It is of
course possible (though very unlikely in my view)
that the earth's surface some three billion years
ago was fit only for the most highly heat-loving
forms of life. The deeprootedness of extreme
thermophiles might also be taken to suggest the hot
ocean vents as the locus of life's origin. But what
would have been the source of chemical energy, if
not fluids upwelling from the d e e p that could
derive energy in reactions with materials
available on their pathways? Empirical evidence,
then, though it does not exclude hypotheses
that posit a surface origin of life,
nevertheless strongly supports the contention of
subsurface origins.
The Enhanced Probability
for Life's Origin

eep-earth gas theory is a requisite for the
view that earth life originated at depth. The
subsurface realm not only provides a more
favorable habitat for early life but also vastly
increases the region in which chemical
"experiments" could have taken place. This
increase in volume and mass-especially of carbon-
carrying molecules, greatly enhances the probability
that favorable co-occurrences of chemical reactions
and juxtapositions of complex molecules-the
precursors of life-would have happened by chance.

It may be quite incorrect to think that there was a
definite beginning to life. There may be a step-by-
step route toward the complexity of very
simple forms of life in which no single step
could be considered the step that demarcates living
from non- living matter. Life may represent no
more than the processes that are described in
the physics and chemistry textbooks, applied in
circumstances that are far outside the scope of
our imagination. We must therefore judge the
probability or improbability of any particular
molecule or structure forming in terms of the
number of experiments that could be expected to
have taken place in the chemical media
characteristic of the early earth-and in time spans of
hundreds of millions of years. A process that would
rightly be judged highly improbable for the
occurrence of any single step would nevertheless
have a high probability of taking place if the
experiment that could produce it were repeated a
very large number of times.

Suppose we start with the variety of atoms (or
molecules derived from them) that we see in liquids
in the deeper rocks: carbon, hydro gen, oxygen,
nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, sodium, potassium,
calcium, and some other metals derived from the
rocks. (I will refer to this assortment as the "soup.")
How many reactions would be taking place that
might create novel molecules? The subsurface
realm offers two fundamental advantages over the
surface realm in this regard. First, pressure would
stabilize many molecules that could not exist at the
surface. More novelty would thus be possible at
depth, given the same starting brew. Second,
the elevated temperatures associated with depth
would speed all reactions, thus offering more
possible combinations than a similar volume of
soup in the surface realm would generate over the
same span of time.

How might the volume of soup differ between the
surface and subsurface realms? Proponents of the
surface view of life's origin do not hold that the
entire surface of the earth was awash in life-
generating soup some 3.5 or 4 billion years ago.
Rather, in their view, molecules that could serve
as precursors to living metabolisms and
replication systems might have been manufactured
sporadically by chance and then concentrated in
sloshing and evaporating tide pools or along vents
of the deep ocean floor, where hot fluids spew into
a cool and chemically distinctive environment.
According to deep-earth gas theory, however,
upstreaming hydrocarbons would have been
suffusing pore spaces within the earth's crust with
a ready-made soup ever since the planet
accreted and gravitational sorting commenced. The
v o l u m e of soup available for prebiological
experiments would thus have been virtually the entire
volume of pore spaces held open within the earth's
crust by the upwelling fluids.

To calculate the possible volume, let us begin with
a reasonable interval of depth, say from just below
the surface down to 10 kilometers, in which the
chemical soup might fill pore spaces that occupy 1
percent of the rock volume. The rock volume would
amount to 5.1 X 10111 cubic meters; 1 percent
would thus be 5.1 x 1016 cubic meters, or a mass of
soup on the order of 5.1 x 1016 tons. This mass of
soup would represent about 4 percent of the
entire mass of the earth's oceans today.

Let us assume that the mean molecular weight of
the soup is 50 atomic mass units. This would entail,
say, two carbon atoms (24), one oxygen atom (16),
and ten hydrogen atoms (10). Fifty atomic
mass units is not too different from the molecular
weight of liquids pulled up from such depths today.
Then, 5.1 X
1016 tons would translate into a number of
such molecules on the order of 6 X 1044

How many chemical reactions would take place in
the soup? Here the calculation becomes very
speculative. We can infer (as explained in Chapter
3) that because the soup comes from an underlying
source in the mantle that has not been heated and
mixed to the point of chemical equilibrium, it will
possess energy that can naturally drive many
chemical processes that take it nearer to chemical
equilibrium. Let us suppose that any one molecule
has a chance of suffering a modification once per
day. Such modification might be just thermally
induced, or it might result from chance encounters of
molecules that will react with one another. In a billion
years there will then have been 3.6 X 1011
modifications for each ancestral molecule present at
the beginning, in a total mass of 6 x 1044
such molecules, for a total of about 2 x 1056
such modifications.

This large number would assume importance only
if some special molecule crucial to life were created
among the crowd of others. How can we evaluate the
possibility that this might happen? Probabilities so
small that the particular molecule would occur only
once in 1056 experiments are not in the realm in
which we have any competent intuitive judgment.
Perhaps an analogy may help, however. Imagine that
you are flipping a coin in sets of 100 tosses. After
you flip the first hundred, you decide to flip another
hundred, and then another, until you finally flip a set in
which all one hundred tosses turn up heads. If you
have average luck, you would have to perform that
set of tosses 1030 times in order to achieve a
single all-head set. Now, if you were given
1056 opportunities to perform the same
experiment in coi n-tossi ng, you could expect to
produce, on average, 8 x 1022 perfect sets of all
heads.

This could also be phrased in terms of the
traditional discussion of high improbabilities-that is,
of how many monkeys with typewriters it would take
to duplicate one of Shakespeare's works. As it turns
out, our number here, 1056, is about the number of
monkeys needed to pro duce just the first line of a
particular Shakespeare sonnet.2 But if we employed
1057 monkeys instead, we could expect several
instances of success. The absurdly improbable
event would have become highly probable.

Whether the numbers I have used in my
calculation of molecular probabilities are actually
correct I do not know. But whatever the correct
choice of numbers may be, it is certain that they
would still lead us into this inscrutable large-number
realm-and thereby to a situation where events will
occur that individually would have been judged so
extremely improbable that no notice would be taken
of their chance of occurring. But they may
indeed occur, given this background of steady
modifications in masses upon masses of
molecules over a very l o ng stretch of time. In
fact, they may have high probabilities of
occurring.

Even so, one may wonder what good it would do
for the magic molecule to have lurched into
existence just once in a billion years amid such a
mass of useless companions. The answer is that a
single molecule can indeed come to dominate the
population of the entire soup in a short time-if that
special molecule is an autocatalyst. An autocatalyst
is a molecule that not only is responsible for
catalyzing a particular reaction but one that causes
another molecule just like itself to form
from
components of the soup. An ordinary catalytic
molecule facilitates the formation of some
other molecule. An autocatalyst stimulates the
formation of a copy of itself.

Let us assume, for convenience, that in all cases
the average generation time for a single molecule to
form a new molecule is one day. After one day, the
ordinary catalytic molecule will have synthesized one
molecule of another kind. After two days it will have
synthesi zed one more, for a running total of two
synthesized molecules. By the end of the third day,
there will be three such synthesized molecules, four
on day four, and so on. In contrast, the population of
autocatalysts will grow exponentially, from two at the
end of the first day to four at the end of the second,
then to 16, 32, and so on. This rapid growth in
numbers inherent in the autocatalytic process
makes its furtherance invulnerable to accidents.
The loss of any single autocatalytic molecule among
a large set of such molecules is no great setback.
In contrast, if the lone catalyst meets an untimely
end on the fifth day, the entire process comes to a
halt.

The number of offspring of the autocatalytic
molecule will be given by 2 where n is the number of
generations that have passed. Let us take 50
generations-in our model, 50 days-in which
period the ordinary catalyst would have
produced 50 molecules. In this same period
the autocatalyst would have produced 250, or 1015,
offspring. In 188 generations (in our example, still
only 188 days), the number would reach 4 X 1056-
which, remember, we have calculated to be the
total number of molecules in the entire soup. In
practice, there will be shortages of some
component atoms of the autocatalytic molecule
well before the entire soup is reconfigured into
clones of that busy molecule, so the process will
stop far short of total consumption of the soup.
Nevertheless, this autocatalytic process will easily
dominate all other chemical processes,
having started with just a single molecule, whose
probability
of forming might have been considered extremely
low.

The more extensive the volume of the soup, the
higher the chances of the creation of a molecule that
fulfills the complex requirements of autocatalysis and
the higher the chances of a further development from
that stage. The layers of the crust, in combination
with the flow of fluids that can deliver energy by
undergoing reactions with the solids on their
pathways, are the largest such domain that the earth
possesses. We should then give this domain our first
consideration for the origin of life.

We can identify autocatalytic processes readily if
a molecule produces one like itself in the next
generation. But a process still belongs to the
mathematical regime of autocatalysis if it
reproduces the first type only from a later generation,
having in the meantime produced one or several
intermediate stages. These intermediate
stages slow up the process, but the underlying
exponential will eventually still beat out all competing
processes. We may refer to autocatalysts of
different orders: The first order just reproduces
itself. The second order produces itself again, but
only after another form intervenes. A third order
has two forms in between, and so on.

But does this account not describe the essentials
of life? Each form will produce an autocatalyst again,
which we will call the genotype, the unit that contains
the instructions for the design of the next generation.
In between is another stage-the phenotype-which will
then produce the genotype like the one from which it
derived. The next genotype then continues the
process. Plants and animals (such as ourselves) are
the intervening phenotypes. But the mathematics of
reproduction will still follow the exponential law. With
the power of this exponential law behind it, any
biological regime would readily become dominant
over any competing one that did not enjoy this
mathematical advantage. All reproduction in biology
is subject to the exponential law, even when
unfavorable for a species, as it is when it leads to
the "feast and famine" disaster.

An autocatalyst of the second or higher order
presents an opportunity for the "phenotype" stage to
support changes that would not destroy the
autocatalytic ability of the next genotype but
would nevertheless carry forward the changes
that had been made. At this point Darwinian logic
enters the system, and changes that are
"beneficial" by increasing the survival chance of
either genotype or phenotype or by increasing its
reproduction rate will beat out other changes.

Has this discussion solved the problem of the
origin of life? I do not think so. What it has told us is
that the basic systems of multiply repeated self-
reproduction may be present already in molecules
that occur in what we would call inanimate nature;
perhaps they even occur frequently. We have thus
set the scene for an evolution that will now be subject
to the guiding force of Darwinian natural selection
and, so enhanced, may expand into much greater
complexities both of structure and of chemistry.

The self-replicating molecules are a step toward
the evolution of life, but our definition of life generally
involves the presence of cells. Perhaps this is an
error on our part. Viruses are units of life, but only
those that use cellular organisms as hosts and
thereby cause changes or damage to them are
identified. There may be a large number of similar
non-cellular organisms that draw on chemical energy
sources from their environment that may be either of
biological or non-biological origin. If they do not
cause any evident changes, they would give us no
hint of their existence. Yet they might have
represented the early forms of life and may still be a
major component.

Cells appear to be a necessity for the
more complex, more elaborate life forms. How
could cells ever have formed? Many
investigators have
regarded the step to the formation of cells as the
critical step, the essential step to enter into the
evolution of complex forms of life. For this reason, I
shall offer a possible path toward the formation of
cell walls surrounding the genetic (autocatalytic)
molecule. Many microbes are known that
acquire water around them, confined and held to
them by a jellyfying agent. The non-cellular life
may already have developed such an ability, and
the next step may be the evaporation of water
from the outer surfaces of this slime, thereby
concentrating material in the slime, causing them
to form a skin. If this proves helpful to the
organism it may then evolve and add materials to
the surrounding slime that are best suited to make
a permanent skin. Once there are molecules of
great complexity involved, it is not a large step for
these to enclose themselves with a cell wall.
Darwin's Dilemma



n Charles Darwin's lifetime and ever
since, one problem has plagued his beautiful
theory. The gradual evolution implied by
occasional random errors in the genetic
blueprints should leave evidence for many
intermediate forms in the evolution of a
species, some that are in the line of evolution that
occurred and some that came to a dead end.
But that is not what the fossil record shows.
Rather, it shows long periods with little or no
change, and then an almost instantaneous transition
to another form. It has been argued that this pattern
of biological evolution may be due to rare but rapid
changes in the environment (possibly imposed by
major variations in climate or atmospheric
composition or by volcanic eruptions) that enforced
a rapid adaptation of life at such times. In between
these changes, there was little to be gained from
random changes, and Darwinian selection would
have tended to inhibit them. This view of biological
evolution is generally called "punctuated
equilibrium."

Perhaps Darwin's dilemma is in fact resolved by
an alternation of stasis and change in the
environment. I personally do not think so, although I
believe that the environment may well have
been subject to such punctuated conditions. But
even if there were periods in which a rapid
adaptation was needed, could random changes
and the numerous selection processes required
have taken so little time and left so few
examples of intermediate steps? Would this
happen to many different species at different
times? That, at any rate, is the nature of the
question that remains.

Darwin was not very definite about the cause of
the variations that his theory required. Most
investigators following him assumed that it must be
random variations, inaccuracies in the blueprints
delivered to produce the next generation. They could
certainly identify such errors in many cases, and they
most often found these errors by noting their
detrimental result. But might there be some other
cause for genetic modification than random errors, a
cause that could make major changes all at once? If
so, the problem of the lack of intermediate forms
could perhaps be explained.

Random chance mutation seems to be an
adequate mechanism for explaining evolutionary
change within two of the three taxonomic domains of
life-the archaea and the bacteria. These organisms
have high reproduction rates, and the numbers in
any generation are enormously large. The probability
of hitting on a favorable mutation by random errors in
a particular period of time is given by the number of
living representatives of a species, divided by the
length of time required by the reproduction cycle. In
this, the difference between elephants and bacteria
is enormous.

Let us consider the evolutionary capabilities of the
most-studied bacterium on earth, E. coli. There are
about 1012 E. coli bacteria in every person's
digestive tract; these microbes are essential for the
chemical processing of our food. The human
population, rounded to the nearest order of
magnitude, consists of 1010 persons alive today, so
the number of E. coli carried by humanity alone is
about 1022. A bacterium suitably fed will reproduce
about every 20 minutes. Now compare E. coli's
reproductive potential with that of elephants. There
are perhaps 100,000 elephants alive today, and
their reproduction time is 10 years. The bacteria
reproduce 262,800 times as fast, and there are
1017 times as many in just the one habitat (the
human gut) that we have mentioned. The chance of
hitting on a favorable mutation in a given period of
time is thus 2.6 x 1022 times greater for
these bacteria than for the elephants.
Thus chance mutations and their selection could
well be the path to major evolutionary innovations
among the various lineages of microorganisms and
yet be hopelessly slow for large creatures. As it turns
out, large creatures differ greatly in form, but not so
much in function. A mouse, to say nothing of a frog,
may look very different from an elephant, but all
vertebrates share the same cell types, the same
species of molecules. The innovations among
macrofauna occur not in the design of the standard
animal set of cell types but in the arrangement of
cells and in the speed and number of reproduction
cycles that are sustained. Microbes excel in
metabolic variety, whereas eukaryotes are the
pioneers of form.

Metabolic innovation may have been the more
difficult to achieve. A methane-eating, heat-loving
microbe may look very much like a photosynthetic
microbe, but the evolutionary differences are far
greater than those that separate jellyfish and human.
Lynn Margulis and others have offered convincing
empirical evidence and theoretical arguments that
major innovations in metabolism have been the
achi evements, almost entirely, of the microbial
domains. The eukaryotic domain, which eventually
spun off all the macrofauna, has simply acquired
what it needed from the microbes by way of
endosymbiosis-that is, by engulfing microbes that
then became integral to the eukaryotic cell. Indeed,
the entire eukaryotic domain is thought to have
begun with the symbiotic merger of at least two
metabolically distinct lineages of microbes.

Endosymbiosis is now accepted as a crucially
important and radical means by which evolutionary
innovations are passed across lineages. Such
exchanges can account for sudden leaps in the
reci pient lineage, even though the microbial lineage
that initially pioneered the metabolic talent may have
taken a good deal of time to bring it to fruition.
Another pathway for sharing skills is now a
major e nt e rp ri s e in our biomedical and
agricultural
laboratories. This is the art of gene splicing. Could
naturally occurring methods of gene splicing have
been a major driving force for evolution, and could
they have resulted in much more rapid transitions
and fewer intermediate steps than individual chance
mutations would have required? This possibility has
recently come under serious investigation by experts
in the field.3 Nevertheless, a little idle speculation
from a non-expert may be interesting.

Darwinian logic would apply not only to the
evolution of metabolisms and body forms but also to
the evolution of the genetic systems underlying
both. Thus if any transfer of genes from one
organism to another were generally more a
help than a hindrance, the genetic system-
pioneered by populous and prolific microbes-
would surely have adjusted itself to permit
this. Even a minute probability of transferring
some genetic material from microbiological
lineages to macrobiological ones could be a
major-even a dominant-mechanism for
macrobiological evolution.

To illustrate this point, let us return to our
comparison of elephants and bacteria. An enzyme,
perhaps a molecule of great complexity capable of
performing a useful function in certain metabolic
processes, might be "invented" by a lineage of
microbes as a result of a long sequence of chance
mutations. If these successive chance steps would
perhaps take a hundred years to occur somewhere
in the large population of microbes, this would
translate into 1018 years-one billion billion years-for
the same chemical evolution to occur in elephants
(and similar times for any macrobiological form). In
other words, it would never happen. We will now
have to think whether there are mechanisms for
gene splicing in nature that might seem outrageously
improbable but that might still bring a molecule from
the microbes into the genetic material of
macroorganisms in an acceptable time frame for
evolution.
It would seem, then, that all elaborate "design" by
a sequence of chance mutations belongs to the two
taxonomic domains of microbiology. Mutations in
macrobiology may still be a significant factor for
simple design changes (including changes in
form), though detrimental random mutations
occur more often. Chemical changes may well
require carrying several intermediate forms that
serve no purpose before the useful form is
assembled, and that would greatly decrease the
probability and therefore greatly lengthen the
time required. In my view, only the microbial
world can offer up the numbers of experiments
that such significant kinds of innovations
demand. Gene splicing would then offer the best
path for the macrobiological world to benefit,
too.

In modern biotechnology we see the two methods
at work. Deliberate selection, such as that which
made a Pekinese or a Great Dane from a wolf, or a
corn of two or three times the yield of its ancestors,
is a method still very much in use for agriculture.
Strains of plants that resist certain insects or
diseases have been produced in this way; dogs,
horses, cows, pigs, and other animals have been
successfully bred for characteristics desirable to
their owners. But now we can already begin to see a
competition arising with the other method of
modification: the method based on gene splicing.
We can, for example, buy gene-spliced tomatoes
that exhibit increased resistance to rotting. Gene
s p l i c i ng enables pharmaceutical companies to
harvest human insulin from pigs. Many other such
advantages are expected to emerge from ongoing
experimentation. Agriculture will be able to remain
efficient without the chemical assistance it now
requires to ward off insect attack and disease,
because crops and livestock will themselves have
been equipped with genes that endow them with the
ability to resist these ravages. How long will it be
before we will incorporate diseaseresistant
genes into humans and diminish our reliance
on medications and medical treatments?
If we believe that genetic material could be
transferred naturally from one species to another,
then the whole subject of symbiosis-the relationship
of a set of different creatures living together for their
mutual benefit-assumes new importance. Could
such colonies have come to pool their genetic
material? If so, then by that one act they would
become a new, complex, differentiated, multicellular
organism. I do not know how far one should take this
line of thought. Is a complex animal the descendant
of a symbiotic arrangement of the progenitors of the
individual organs?4

Symbiosis, endosymbiosis, and gene splicing are
all ways to spread evolutionary innovations
horizontally across great branches of the full diversity
of life. For these sorts of exchanges to occur,
however, a fundamental compatibility in genetic
structure must be present. This brings me to the
chapter's final topic: molecular chirality.

Many of the molecules in biological material could
exist in two configurations that are precise
mirror images of each other. These molecules are
said to possess chirality. A chiral molecule may
appear in either a right-handed or a left-handed
form. The double helix of DNA, for example,
resembles a spiral staircase with handrails on each
side. In theory, the staircase could spiral either to
the right or to the left, a n d that directionality
would hold from whatever aspect one viewed
the staircase. In practice, all DNA molecules
exhibit right-handed chirality. Why this uniformity
throughout all domains of earth life?

A right-hand-left-hand symmetrical relation cannot
be defined in two dimensions, so chirality can
exist only in molecules of three dimensions. For any
three points, we can always choose a plane
that goes through them, so a molecule composed
of just three atoms will have only two dimensions.
A three-atom molecule will always be identical to its
mirror image, seen from one side or the other. It
cannot possess chirality. Molecules that possess
four or more atoms
may or may not be three-dimensional and therefore
may or may not be chiral. Chiral molecules in a
liquid can be observed to rotate, in one direction
or the other, the plane of plane-polarized light
that is passed through it. Thus the molecules may
rotate the plane in a right-handed or lefthanded
sense. Those that do the former are given the
prefix R; those that do the latter, L.

There are many chiral molecules or crystal
structures of nonbiological origin that occur naturally.
But in non-biological materials, the two forms appear
in statistically equal numbers. In biological materials
that is not so. As already noted, all DNA spirals to
the right. Some of the amino acids that form the
basic components of proteins are chiral, too, and
these show a left-handed chirality for all known
terrestrial life-from bacteria all the way to elephants
and ourselves. In theory, a right-handed form of any
particular protein would undertake precisely the
same chemical reactions in all cases in which all
interacting molecules had been replaced by their
mirror images. In other words, chemical reactions do
not favor one chirality over another. Why, then, have
not some branches of life shifted their proteins to the
R structure?

An obvious answer is that all biology must have
derived from the same origin. That first cell-
or whatever it was-laid down the rules of the game
for all time. The choice of chiral direction was
arbitrary, whichever form this progenitor happened
to hit on, with a 50-50 chance. Everything that
derived from it, however far down the line of
evolution, then continued to be constrained by that
first selection.

Linus Pauling, one of the great chemists of the
twentieth century, expressed his doubts about this
answer:

All the proteins that have been investigated,
obtained from animals and from plants, from
higher organisms and from very simple
organismsbacteria, molds, even viruses-are
found to have been made of L-amino acids.
The
suggestion has been made that the first living
organism happened by chance to make use of a
few molecules of the L configuration, which were
present with the others statistically in
equal numbers; and that all succeeding forms of
life that have evolved have continued to use
L-amino acids through inheritance of the
character from the original form of life.
Perhaps a better explanation can be found-but
I do not know what it is.5
No one can surmise Pauling's thoughts at the time
he wrote this, but I imagine he could not believe that
inheritance would be so precise throughout evolution
that the vast diversity of life would never develop
independent branch systems deviating from this
defined pattern of chirality. At any rate, that would
have been my reservation, leading also to the hope
that a better explanation can be found. Perhaps the
advantage of gene splicing provides the better
answer.

If gene splicing has been a major source of the
variances introduced into the evolutionary process,
then any lineage that mutated to the opposite
chirality would forego all future opportunities to
receive the benefits of innovations achieved by
any other branch of life. The straying lineage
would be cut off from assistance and would,
sooner or later, lag behind the rest to such an
extent that selection would drive it to extinction.

If gene splicing and various forms of symbiotic
mergers across widely separated lineages have, in
fact, played major roles in the evolution of earth life,
then we should not describe the vast diversity of life
through time as an evolutionary "tree," with
each branch progressing on its own and
developing into individual species. Rather, we
would think of a combined evolution of
terrestrial biology, all continuing to be closely
interrelated with one another and with the most
prolific gene pool of all-that of the microorganisms.'
Because the deep hot biosphere
is, in my view, so vast, and because this realm is
very likely to have nurtured the first living systems,
many of the innovations and gene-trading and
merging events that support today's expressions of
life probably took place well before there was any life
on the surface of the earth. Perhaps such
achievements are still under way.
What Next?




primordial origin of terrestrial
hydrocarbons and a source of them at great depth,
providing food for a vigorous microbiology at
shallower depths-this is the viewpoint for which
much evidence has been presented here. It is clear,
however, that additional confirmation of the deep-
earth gas theory and the deep hot biosphere theory
will be required before they become generally
accepted. Several types of investigations can be
undertaken to acquire such confirming evidence.

The deep-earth gas theory has already been
confirmed in the drilling experiment described in
Chapter 6. The Siljan Ring geological structure in
Sweden was chosen as the site for this experiment
because it is a purely granitic province, so any gas
discovered at depth there could not be explained by
the biogenic theory of the formation of hydrocarbons.
Methane and heavier hydrocarbons were, in fact,
discovered-and at a depth of more than 6
kilometers. The deep-earth gas theory was thus, to
my mind, confirmed. Nevertheless, more
such anomalous findings will have to accrue
before the existing biogenic theory is abandoned
by those who now accept that theory
unquestioningly.

Another way to refute the biogenic theory would
entail measurements that can be made in existing
gas fields. Many observations have been recorded
of hydrocarbons at the earth's surface. "Cold
petroleum seeps" on continental shelves and blocks
of methane hydrate ice pressing up through the
oceanic floor and underlying vast stretches of arctic
tundra were described in Chapter 2. The La
Brea Tar Pits of southern California, famous for the
brown-
stained bones of sabertooth tigers and other great
mammals of the Pleistocene, is another example. In
places where hydrocarbons seep from the crust into
the atmosphere in gaseous form and at a high rate,
the emanations cannot be seen and may not
carry an odor, but flames may appear and
disappear.

Accurate measurements of the rates of gas
seepages, particularly over regions where natural
gas is produced commercially, might yield data that
would be difficult to explain by the biogenic theory of
hydrocarbon formation. If the volume and seepage
rate of hydrocarbon gases entering the atmosphere
in such regions turned out to be so great that the gas
reservoirs underneath would have been exhausted
naturally in just a few thousand years, for example,
the conventional theory of multi-million-year-old gas
fields would have to be abandoned. It would have to
be acknowledged that, say, methane molecules now
contained in a reservoir of perhaps late-Cretaceous
age have not, in fact, been sitting there, just so, for
some seventy or eighty million years. The
hydrocarbon content of that reservoir would have to
be attributed to a temporary pooling of an ongoing
upward flow from a very distant and much deeper
source. We could thus conclude that the resource
would be enormously more productive over time
than previously thought. One more stone
would be removed from the foundation supporting
the theory that hydrocarbons are the reworked
remains of organisms that lived and died on the
earth's surface, then were buried along with
sediments of that particular age, and finally
were cooked into hydrocarbons and
concentrated into much smaller volumes by
mysterious geological processes.

Calculations made using measured values of the
permeability of rocks to the flow of gases seem to
show that any gas field would indeed exhaust itself in
a small fraction of the age that is ascribed to it on the
basis of the age of its containment rocks. For
example, Jon S. Nelson and E. C. Simmons and
others have calculated that the volume and flow rate
of gas seepages that would have occurred from a
gas field below rocks of the lowest permeability
recorded would still exhaust the field in just a few
tens of thousands of years.' Direct observational
evidence of escape rates will have to be obtained,
however, before these seemingly anomalous results
are taken as a serious challenge to the biogenic
theory.

There is one very inexpensive way to measure the
rate of outgassing in many places. Over a small
area, erect a tent filled with a permeable substance
like sand and made of an impermeable material like
plastic sheeting. Arrange for the outside edge all
around to be dug into the ground to a sufficient
depth that the wind wouldn't blow through. Then
wire the interior of this tent with instruments that
continuously measure the composition of the air and
other gases. Methane and carbon dioxide would
almost certainly be the principal gases upwelling
into the tent that could be measured, but it would
also be helpful to record nitrogen, argon, and
helium flows. With a statistically useful set of tents
erected in an area, it would be possible to
establish the approximate volume of the outflow of
gases from below.

The advantage of this type of data collection is
that the equipment costs would be small. Other,
more expensive techniques would give results of
greater consequence, however. One such technique
would entail injecting a burst of a tracer gas into the
ground at some depth. (An appropriate tracer gas
would be one that does not appear naturally in the
ground and that is chemically inert relative to the
material of the rocks.) After the injection, we would
observe the time elapsed before this gas is
detected at the surface surrounding the injection
point. Because this tracer gas must be carried as a
small admixture of the gases that are normally
streaming through the ground, the proposed
measurement (together with knowledge of the
porosity in the area down to the depth of injection)
would yield the flow speed and quantity of gases
upwelling naturally.

To perform this tracer gas experiment, we might
drill a smalldiameter borehole to a depth of a
kilometer or so and cement a casing into it just short
of the bottom, sealing off the lowermost segment. A
small pipe penetrating the closed segment of casing
would be used to inject the tracer gas in individual
bursts. The only escape route for the tracer gas
would be out the bottom and into the natural porosity
of the rock. Measuring instruments for the tracer gas
would then be deployed on the surface surrounding
the well, and the time elapsed between the injection
and the first appearance of the tracer at the
surface could thus be used to calculate the upward
speed of flow of the natural streams.

This tracer gas procedure would provide good
data for projecting flow rates over a relatively wide
area if the ground were homogeneous. The use of
several wells would allow us to detect any major
inhomogeneities. The procedure would also yield
another result, possibly of great interest to chemical
surface prospecting: It would show whether the
gases take a vertical path through the rocks or
lateral pressure differences cause them to take
paths that are inclined at some angle to the vertical.
We would simply note whether the bulk of the tracer
gas emerges at a point displaced from the injection
point, rather than encircling the well smoothly.

This tracer gas technique to measure the volume
and rate of hydrocarbon flow from depth into the
atmosphere, along with the cruder tent method,
could be applied in any number of gas fields in which
hydrocarbon reserves are well defined. I believe that
the results would further support the deep-earth gas
theory and cast further doubt on the biogenic theory.
Microbial Investigations



nce the primordial nature of hydrocarbons
I and their upwelling from great depth is deemed
plausible, it is yet another step to take seriously the
possible existence of a huge and independent
realm of life beneath our own surface biosphere. But
indigenous microbes have, in fact, been drawn up in
hydrocarbon fluids encountered at great depth in oil
wells, as described in Chapters 2 and 6. And all
liquid hydrocarbons bear the signature of organic
molecules of a kind and occurrence best explained
by the posited existence of a planetwide horizon of
subsurface microbes feeding on this rich source of
chemi cal energy (Chapter 5). How do we begin to
learn about the inhabitants of the deep hot
biosphere?

It is difficult enough to study microbes that are
comfortable with surface conditions and to ascertain
food web relationships among the living and their
metabolic products. It is very difficult to do these
things for microbial ecosystems that humans will
never be able to visit directly and whose inhabitants
are accustomed to temperatures and pressures that
differ greatly from the ambient conditions in our
s ur f a c e laboratories (and would be extremely
expensive to duplicate). How, then, can we be sure
which metabolic activity is primary-that is, which is
the foundation of the food web? How can we
determine what is the original source of energy that
drives the whole system?

It is easy to determine the base of the food web
and the original energy source for any ecosystem of
the surface biosphere. This is because all such food
webs ultimately depend on photosynthesis. Find the
photosynthesizers (or the buried remains of the
photosynthesizers), and you find the base of the food
web. But finding the foundation of a chemically
based ecosystem can be difficult in the extreme.
How can one determine whether a particular
chemical constituent is an original resource or a
biological product?

From our understanding of life in the surface
biosphere, we know that colonies of microorganisms
will develop in any location where the energy,
material, aqueous, thermal, and chemical
requirements of life can be satisfied.
Photosynthesizers at the base of the surface food
w e b convert the energy of sunlight into chemical
energy, from which they fuel their metabolisms and
build their bodies. Proceeding up the scale of
consumption, whatever energy is left over in the
bodies or metabolic products of one group is
tackled by the next group in the sequence.

At deep-ocean vents, too, we can expect to find a
number of different chemical processes all mixed up
in the same body of water. This is because
everybody's waste is likely to be somebody else's
food. The hard part is to decide which is the primary
step that supplies the energy for all this biological
activity and where the essential nutrient chemicals
come from. Reduced molecules that can be oxidized
will supply the energy. The same molecules,
supplemented by other varieties, will supply carbon,
hydrogen, water, oxygen, nitrogen, and (in smaller
quantities) various other chemicals that are required
to initiate complex biochemical reactions. To
determine empirically which substance is the
primary energy source and which is the oxidant for a
chemically based system requires more information
than can be obtained from studying the metabolism
of any one type of inhabitant.

To study microbial life at depth in the earth's outer
crust or at a borderland site, such as deep-ocean
vents, it is customary to collect from the site a
sample of biologically active fluid (inoculant) and
then attempt to culture this sample in a vessel that
has been sterilized and provided with the material
conditions hypothesized to be necessary for growth
o f the indigenous microbes. For example, if
hydrogen sulfide is provided in the cultured sample,
and molecular oxygen is also introduced, then any
growth that ensues can be assumed to have used
hydrogen sulfide as the fuel source and molecular
oxygen as the oxidant. If carbon dioxide is provided
for the carbon source, then bacterial growth under
those conditions indicates the presence of carbon-
fixing microbes.

It is crucial to remember that in culturing microbes,
if you do not provision a growth chamber
with methane to serve as fuel, you will not
discover the presence of methanotrophs. If you do
not attempt to nourish a bit of inoculant with a
carbon source such as methane, rather than
carbon dioxide, then of course you will not
discover an organism that utilizes methane and not
carbon dioxide. Because metabolic studies of
deep-ocean vent microbes have detected
biological activity on a laboratory culture
medium of hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and
carbon dioxide, it is generally assumed that the
organisms that use these materials represent the
base of the food web. But one of the key participants
in this research, David Karl, urges his colleagues to
"keep an open mind."2 The mere fact that one living
system has been verified does not mean that this is
the primary one and that there are no others.

Accordingly, I hope that more attention will be
given to the source and role of methane in this
ecosystem. As noted in Chapter 2, microbes that
derive their energy and their carbon from methane
(methanotrophs) have been discovered in
symbioses with mussels at the deep ocean vents.3 I
anticipate that continued research will eventually
reveal that methane is an important chemical
foundation of the deepocean vent ecosystem. It is
equally possible that hydrogen sulfide will prove to
be a waste product of methanotrophs that obtain
oxygen from sulfate, in which case methane will be
awarded the foundational position.

Introducing the correct fuel source, oxidant, and
nutrients into the laboratory culturing vessel is just the
first step. It is equally important to provide the
inoculant microbes a temperature and pressure bath
to their liking. If a sample is drawn up from an oil well
at 110C and 600 atmospheres pressure, then those
same conditions ought to be made available to the
microbes in their new home. It is widely known in the
microbial research community that
hyperthermophiles cannot be expected to grow at
temperatures that humans find comfortable, and high
temperatures are not difficult to provide in the
laboratory. But it is another matter entirely to offer
microbes 600 atmospheres of pressure. Few, if any,
microbiology labs are so equipped. Lack of
sufficient pressurization in culturing experiments may
be especially detrimental for inoculants that contain
methanotrophs drawn up from great depths.
Methanotrophs may be unable to access the
diffuse vapors of methane at atmospheric
pressures. For them, depth (or simulated depth)
may be not just desirable but essential.

Until we furnish our laboratories with culturing
vessels that mimic the conditions of intense heat and
pressure characteristic of great depths, we should
not interpret an absence of microbial activity in
culturing experiments as evidence of the absence of
life at such depths. Furthermore, if biological
molecules are identified in a sample but cannot be
coaxed into metabolic activity, we should not
automatically discount those molecules as
contamination introduced from the surface while the
hole was being drilled. Instead we may have
inadvertently killed the microbes in transit to the lab.

Even if ideal laboratory conditions are available,
successful culturing of deep-earth microbes may be
undercut by the methods used to transport biological
samples to the lab. High temperatures and high
pressures may not only be required for growth; they
may be required for survival. Exposure to
atmospheric pressure for even brief periods
might prove lethal, just as some fishes reeled in from
depth cannot be expected to live and return to their
home when the hook is removed at
shipside. John Postgate, in his book The Outer
Reaches of Life, tells the story of researchers
attempting to culture a sample drawn from a site
in Antarctica.4 The first culturing experiments
yielded microbes that could function and
reproduce at very cold temperatures. But these
microbes were not absolutely dependent on cold
temperatures; they could reproduce at warmer
temperatures too. Not until samples were kept in
frigid conditions throughout the entire journey from
field to laboratory were new microbes
discovered that could survive only in cold
temperatures.

This story is a cautionary tale for researchers
attempting to culture samples from deep wells.
Unless samples from deep wells are provided with
suitable conditions all the way up the tube and en
route to the laboratory, we cannot expect the life
forms to arrive in a state that will permit us to waken
them from their repose. How difficult may it be to
provide suitable conditions? If a sample were taken
at a depth of 5 kilometers, the pressure there would
be anywhere between 500 and 1500 atmospheres. It
would take very strong vessels indeed, and
exceptionally good seals, to yield samples of a
biological integrity representative of such depths. In
turn, any culturing experiments must be done at
pressures and temperatures similar to those at the
origin of the samples. If the pressure down there
were anything approaching 1500 atmospheres and
the temperature 120C, the culturing apparatus
would be costly to build and operate. No reports of
such devices have come to my attention.

There is, however, another and perhaps much
simpler way to proceed. We might send down the
borehole a container of mechanical strength
sufficient to resist being crushed by the fluid
pressure. The container should have two chambers
that can be opened and closed by command from
the surface. One chamber could be furnished with a
common bacterial culturing medium, such as acetate
or sugar. The other would be provisioned with the
material thought to be the oxygen donor for microbial
life down there. At the chosen depth, we would open
both chambers and let them fill with the drilling water
and then close them again. The interiors would thus
be maintained at the pressure and temperature at
which the sample was taken. The container might be
left at that depth for the time it would take for cultures
t o develop. When the experimental chambers were
hauled back up into the low-pressure and low-
temperature regime of the surface biosphere,
much of the microbial material might be killed. But
the end products of their metabolism could
still be discovered. Thus if one chamber
had been provisioned with the oxidant ferric iron in
the form of small particles, but on return to the
surface it was found to contain the iron in a less
oxidized state, such as magnetite, we would
conclude that the inoculant introduced at
depth had carried an infectant whose
metabolism required the reduction of ferric iron,
possibly using the reduced gases or liquids that
had accumulated in the wellbore.

By these and other innovative culturing
techniques, the entire ecology of deep life may one
day be revealed. Step by step, the various microbes
of the deep will be sampled, cultured, and
understood. Some interpreters of the results will
undoubtedly still conclude that our own surface
biosphere has mastered strategies for surviving in
an extreme environment, feasting on the geologically
processed remains of surface life long dead and
long buried in the sediments. Others may conclude,
with me, that we have come upon an entirely new
world.
Prospects for Extraterrestrial
Surface Life




ife as we know it depends utterly on the
presence of liquid water, as was noted in Chapter 1.
Ice or steam will not do. Water in its solid form loses
any ability to serve as a matrix for the mixing and
matching of molecules. If nothing can move, no
recombinations of atoms can take place. If the
temperature is more than a few degrees above the
local boiling point of water, water escapes as steam
from any biological material. Water vapor mixed in
an atmosphere of other gases can, however, supply
water to biological systems and can even be turned
into liquid water by chemical action. But this can
happen only in the temperature range between
freezing and boiling.

If water-and water in liquid form-is indeed a
requirement for life on the surface of a planet, then a
combination of several conditions necessary for
water's presence must exist, notably the nature of the
central star, the distance of the planet's orbit from
that star, the size and mass of the planet, and the
nature of the planet's atmosphere. If photosynthesis
is required for the main energy supply, then a
substanti al temperature difference between
the surface of the star and that of the planet is
also required. Light of suitable wavelength
and the presence of liquid water together thus
dictate what turns out to be a very narrow window for
surface life.

Water is a common molecule in the universe, but
water in its liquid phase is rare on planetary and
satellite surfaces of this solar system. There is only
one body so blessed: our own blue pearl of a planet.
W e need look no farther than our two nearest
planetary neighbors, Venus and Mars, to realize just
how lucky it was for surface life that the earth turned
up in the right place, was of the right size and the
right composition, and had the right kind of star to
illuminate it.

Let us begin with Venus. Venus receives almost
twice as much solar radiation as does the
earth. Climate model calculations5 indicate that if
the earth had to bear that level of solar influx, a
"runaway greenhouse" would ensue, destroying all
prospects for surface life. Indeed, because the
sun is slowly heating up, a runaway greenhouse is
in the earth's future, too-but not for billions of
years.' A runaway greenhouse works in this way:
First, higher radiation intensity means a hotter
climate to begin with, which vaporizes more liquid
water on a planet's surface. The hotter climate
also permits more of that water vapor to linger in
the atmosphere before falling out as rain. Water
vapor is a greenhouse gas-in fact, it is the most
effective greenhouse gas in the earth's
atmosphere. It is transparent to most of the incoming
s o l a r energy, but when some visible light is
transformed into the infrared at the earth's surface,
radiation of some of this heat back out to space is
blocked. Water molecules present in the
atmosphere as vapor reflect these longer
wavelengths back to the earth's surface, further
heating the planet and enabling the atmosphere to
hold even more water in a vapor state-which feeds
back on the amount of heat retained by the
earth, and so on. Eventually, all surface water
would vaporize.

Worse yet, an intense hothouse climate would
push a lot of that water vapor into the upper reaches
of the atmosphere, where its molecular bonds would
be vulnerable to the most energetic wavelengths of
solar radiation. When molecules of water are broken
up into hydrogen and oxygen, the light-weight
hydrogen component (H2) escapes from the upper
atmosphere directly into space. The remaining
oxygen atoms may then either join the store of
atmospheric oxygen or increase the degree of
oxidation of the planet's surface materials. Any
carbon is likely to be oxidized to carbon dioxide,
which is fated to remain in the atmosphere of a
waterless planet. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas,
and it will be stably confined by a gravitational field
as strong as that of the earth or of Venus. So long as
the planet continues to drive out carbonbearing
gases from its interior, CO2 will accumulate in the
atmosphere.

The runaway greenhouse on Venus has advanced
to a waterless end. Although Venus was formed of
the same solar system debris as the earth, and
probably also started with some water content, no
wa te r vapor can be detected in its atmosphere
today. The Venusian atmosphere is dominated by
CO2.

On our own water-rich world, the carbon atoms
have been removed from the atmosphere at about
the same rate at which they were supplied by
outgassing from the depths of the earth. Methane
and carbon dioxide are the principal sources of
carbon entering today's atmosphere, as noted in
earlier chapters, and methane also turns quickly into
carbon dioxide and water in our oxidizing
atmosphere. The statistics of boreholes and the
investigation of meteoritic materials (the leftovers of
the construction of the planets) both strongly suggest
that methane is the major gas involved. Carbon
dioxide is withdrawn again from the atmosphere,
permanently or on a long-term basis, mainly by being
sequestered in carbonate rocks deposited on the
ocean bottom. Interestingly enough, had this
water- mediated route for carbon dioxide removal
not been functioning on the earth, our own
atmosphere would now hold just about as much
carbon dioxide as does that of our sister planet
Venus, where the surface atmospheric pressure
is about eighty times ours. There would be no
oceans, no rain, and no surface biosphere.

Turning to Mars, we encounter the opposite
problem for waterdependent surface life. Whereas
the intensity of solar radiation on Venus is twice that
on the earth, the intensity on Mars is less than
onehalf of ours. Not surprisingly, Mars has a surface
that is everywhere below the freezing temperature of
water, and in some areas and seasons, it is very far
below that. It seems that whereas Venus is too close
to the sun, Mars is too distant. But Mars has an even
bigger disadvantage than its remoteness. Mars is
too small.

Surface temperature depends both on distance
from the sun and on the green-house capacities and
density of an atmosphere. The smaller the mass of
the planet, the less massive will be the outgassing
p ro c e s s that creates an atmosphere, and the
weaker the gravitational force that acts to compress
it. Such an atmosphere will also be particularly
vulnerable to solar outbursts of the intensity seen a
few times in every eleven-year solar cycle. These
outbursts can sweep away a bit of atmosphere from
a low-gravity planet or moon, especially if the body
does not have a magnetic field to shield it from high-
energy ionized particles emitted by the sun.
Because Mars has only a tenth of the mass of the
earth (a third of our gravity) and no general magnetic
field, it would easily suffer such losses.

Today's Martian atmosphere exerts only seven-
thousandths the atmospheric pressure of our own. It
is almost entirely composed of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide, but there is far too little CO2 to raise
surface temperatures enough for ice to melt and rain
to fall. Indeed, the poles are so cold that the ice caps
are made partly of carbon dioxide ice.

The small mass of the atmosphere of Mars
narrows the possibilities for liquid water in a more
important way. Anyone who has ever tried to cook at
high elevations will be familiar with this problem. At
high altitudes, there is less atmosphere pressing
down on the surface of a pot of water. Liquid water
therefore vaporizes more readily, and the boiling
point declines. This means that the atmospheric
pressure on a planet defines the temperature range
in which liquid water can exist on the surface.

At sea level on the earth, the atmosphere pushes
down with a weight of about 1 kilogram per square
centimeter of surface area. That pressure provides a
1000C window for liquid water, between boiling and
freezing, which means a 100C window for any
forms of surface life to engage in metabolic
activities. (This range can be increased a few
degrees by chemicals dissolved in the water). A
range of 1000C for liquid water is not much more
than is needed for life to cope with the range of solar
heat delivered to different parts of our own planet.
O n Mars this window for liquid water is much
narrower, for although the boiling point of water is
critically dependent on atmospheric pressure, that
pressure hardly affects its freezing point. The
atmospheric pressure that the present small mass of
the Martian atmosphere exerts would not allow any
liquid water to exist there; instead it would freeze
and sublimate (pass directly from solid to vapor
without first passing through the liquid state). To
have as great an atmospheric pressure as we have
here on the earth, and therefore to have a similar
temperature range for liquid water, would require, in
the weak gravitational field of Mars, three times as
much atmospheric mass above each square
centimeter of surface. There would have to be more
than 140 times as much mass as there is in the
present Martian atmosphere.

But can one assume that such an atmosphere
ever existed on Mars? Where would it all have come
from and how would it have disappeared? CO2 is a
heavy molecule (44 atomic mass units) and would
be held firmly to Mars, whereas the light water vapor
molecule (only 18 mass units) could escape or suffer
dissociation by high-energy components of sunlight,
allowing the hydrogen then to escape into space and
the oxygen to remain on the planet, either in the
atmosphere or fixed in surface materials. The same
process happens on the earth; but here, with greater
gravitational pressure and with the shield of a
magneti c field, little water vapor escapes directly
into space. Some dissociated hydrogen escapes
though, as noted earlier, and the dissociated oxygen
joins the large pool of atmospheric oxygen.

Was there ever liquid water on Mars? Could the
Martian surface once have supported life? It has
been widely assumed that rivers did indeed flow on
Mars in the distant past. The images beamed back
by the Viking spacecraft in 1976 seemed to offer
evidence of a formerly well-watered world. To this
way of thinking, dry channels of onceenormous rivers
are prominent features of the Martian landscape.
Some channels are so large that they are thought to
have been gouged by sudden ruptures of natural
dams, releasing torrents of water far greater
than have ever rushed across the earth.

I (and others before me7) believe that the surface
flow patterns on Mars can be explained much more
satisfactorily by glaciation. To my eye, the very
broad and smoothly curving valleys dubbed
"superhighways" have shapes quite characteristic of
glacial flow and not at all like the flow of a liquid. For
example, where a major obstruction lies in a
channel, the flow pattern splits around it and
recombines behind, creating a teardrop-shaped
island. All directional changes of these channels are
gentle; the curves do not encompass more than 30
degrees of directional change in 100 kilometers.
Channel edges are smooth with no sharp
indentations, and the banks maintain the same slope
for hundreds of kilometers. Such features cannot be
explained by water, however fast it might be asked
to flow. Fast-flowing water is turbulent; the direction
of flow is maintained only for short distances
before turbulence, and even slight irregularities of
terrain, substantially redirect the river. In contrast,
ice is a solid, or, to be more precise, a liquid of
enormously high viscosity. It is this viscosity that
makes the flow smooth, slow, and free of turbulence.
The stiffness of the material opposes any flow
patterns that would
force abrupt changes in direction.

Although the "superhighway" channels are best
explained as recording movements of earlier vast
glaciation on the surface of Mars, there are other
channels that show all the curves and unevenness of
terrestrial rivers and that are marked by abrupt
changes in direction. Some even show the kinds of
loops that we see on the earth's great river deltas.
Such features certainly suggest that liquid
water once flowed there, but they are now dry rills
in the Martian surface. Would this imply that
a huge atmosphere once protected liquid water
on the surface and that the atmospheric
temperature was above the freezing point?

I do not think so. Again, the existence of thick
glaciation in earlier times would account for these
features. Flowing water is, after all, com mon under
terrestrial glaciers, and this water digs out the flow
patterns of rivers in the ground below. On the earth
we see fluvial features in many cases where a
glacier has retreated. The same process can be
expected to have happened on Mars. If the ice sheet
had been 2 kilometers thick, it would have exerted a
pressure in the gravity field of Mars equivalent to 67
earth atmospheres. A thick ice sheet would also
have provided heat insulation so that water warmed
from deeper levels (by the same processes of
gravitational sorting, compression, and radioactive
decay that heat the earth's interior) could penetrate
and flow beneath the ice. Such subglacial
rivers would have carved channels and
transported material just as they have done on our
own planet.

In the course of time, the Martian glaciers
would have sublimated into vapor. Because of
the weak atmospheric pressure, glacial ice
would not have needed to go through a liquid
stage. Sublimation, not melting, would thus have
put an end to the Ice Age on Mars. Channels
carved by glacial flow and deposits made by
subglacial rivers of liquid water would have
been exposed relatively intact. A
multitude of rocks of various sizes and types that
were scattered by large impacts onto the different
levels of the glaciers during their slow evaporation
would eventually all settle gently onto dry surface,
explaining the origin of the numerous fields densely
populated by a diversity of rocks.

One of the very first Viking photos of 1976 shows,
resting on the surface, a rock that is much larger than
all others in the dense field. Assembled around it are
much smaller rocks that clearly define good
approximations to circular patterns. Just this type of
feature has often been observed (by me and by
many others) on terrestrial glaciers. What accounts
for this pattern? The large rock will heat up during the
d a y, retaining a lot of heat that will eventually be
radiated out. The surrounding ice, which captured
less heat in the first place, will be warmed a little by
that rock and therefore will evaporate a little faster
than the other ice. A funnel in the ice will develop
around the rock. Whatever pebbles are locked in the
ice will tumble to the bottom of the funnel as it
forms. If the temperature and evaporation rates vary
in time (as has certainly been the case on the
earth), rings of debris will come to surround the large
rock.

Figure 10.1 A small glacial feature on Mars.
Rings of rocks encircling the large rock at the
center give strong evidence of glaciation and
subsequent evaporation of ice. Many similar
features have been seen on terrestrial glaciers.
Courtesy of NASA.
Photographs of Mars obtained by NASA's
Pathfinder mission in 1997, and by the remotely
controlled vehicle roving the planetary surface,
confirmed the findings of the Viking missions two
decades earlier. Densely scattered rocks of quite
different compositions are a common feature, and a
powdery rock material occurs in the spaces between
rocks. In my view, the density of rocks in these fields
is such that it would be difficult to account for them
as objects thrown out at high velocity from impact
craters. Very little destruction is seen in these rocks.
In contrast, a strewn field from impacts would
generate breakage, because many of the
trajectories would be at a small angle to the surface
and would thus smash many other rocks before
coming to rest. A glacial explanation better explains
the micro as well as the macro features detected on
Mars.

One more large-scale feature on Mars that
glaciation would explain is the prominent
escarpment that surrounds the base of the largest
mountain, Olympus Mons, which is possibly the
largest volcano" in the solar system. This very steep
escarpment is between 1 and 2 kilometers high, all
around the mountain. It is very difficult to explain how
lava stopped flowing down the mountain exactly to
this edge or how such a large quantity of frozen lava
could have been eroded away subsequently. But if
the volcano had been surrounded by glaciers at the
time of the last large eruptions, and if the ice had
been 2 kilometers thick, then whatever liquids came
down the mountain would have been arrested at or
near the glacier level. Subsequent sublimation
would have left the steep escarpment. Similar
features have been reported on terrestrial
volcanoes that border on glaciers.

These and many other features of Mars point to
heavy glaciation, rather than to vast, surface-flowing
rivers. Interpreting such features as glacial also
solves a major problem that planetary scientists
encounter when they try to construct models of the
climate history of Mars. It is very difficult to propose
plausible scenarios by which Mars could at one
time have retained an atmosphere massive
enough to hold down liquid water that then
would have to disappear, leaving less than a
hundredth of its original mass behind-all while
carving a "fluvial" landscape by means of floods
far greater than those that have coursed over the
surface of the earth.

If Venus is too hot to support water-based life on
its surface, Mars, then, is too cold. The rocky moons
of the large outer planets are even colder than Mars,
but unlike Mars, these moons are so cold that frozen
waters on their surfaces survive for long geological
periods. Surface life on other planetary bodies in our
solar system thus seems to be excluded. Subsurface
life, however, is another matter. Mars, the satellites
of the major planets, many asteroids, and even our
own moon should be regarded as real prospects for
harboring extraterrestrial life of this kind. in our solar
system. It would be a great help, in these necessarily
expensive and prolonged exploratory missions, to
have gained already a clear understanding of the
first such example: the earth's deep hot biosphere.
Close cooperation between the space program and
deep geochemical investigations of our own planet
could be mutually beneficial, allowing discoveries to
be made that are important to both efforts.
Deepening the Search
for Extraterrestrial Life

most exciting field of study in the future,
and one in which we will learn much about the origin
and evolution of life, will be the investigation of
subsurface life inhabiting other planetary bodies

Although the surface conditions on the other solid
planetary bodies are all quite different from those on
the earth, the subsurface conditions within many of
the larger planetary bodies will be similar to ours.
The relationship of pressure and temperature with
depth will, of course, be different, but the chances of
life having developed at some depth may be not too
different from those here. Hydrocarbons (methane
and others) have been spectroscopically detected
on the surfaces and in the atmospheres of many of
these bodies, and subsurface liquid water can be
expected within most of them (water appears to
have been plentiful in the circumsolar cloud that
formed the planets, and ice has been identified on
several other planetary bodies and comets that are
colder than the earth). The rocks, like those of the
earth, should contain some oxidized components
that will serve as oxygen donors. The scene would
thus be set for the existence of microbiology there.

Mars would be the least expensive planetary body
to investigate for evidence of subsurface
extraterrestrial life, because we might not need to
launch any spacecraft to begin such an
effort. Meteorites that occasionally fall to earth
bear the chemical signature of Mars. Several
meteorites collected from the ice fields of Antarctica
appear to have come from Mars. Trace element
ratios such as the sequence of noble gases from
neon to xenon, as well as the rather unusual
nitrogen isotope ratio of the Martian atmosphere,
were measured by the
earlier Viking landing craft, and very similar
values for these quantities show up in these
meteorites. It seems very unlikely that debris from
any other body would match these quantities so
closely. Millions of years after an impact on Mars
caused the ejection of Martian material, the orbits
of some of these ejecta led to collisions with the
earth.
In 1996, one such meteorite (denoted ALH84001)
yielded strong evidence that the rock had
been altered by microbial life while it was still
part of Mars.' Detailed examination made it
seem very improbable that this evidence
was due to contamination from life on the
earth. Rather, the biological imprint had been
present in the interior of the stone before it was
ejected from Mars. Like many meteorites,
ALH84001 was found on the surface expanses
of glacial ice in Antarctica free from any terrestrial
debris.

Meteorite ALH84001 gives emphasis to our
search for extraterrestrial life because the rock
almost certainly came not from the Martian surface
but from some depth. For an object to be shot from
Mars into an orbit that could eventually end on the
earth, a very large impact on Mars would have to
have been responsible. There are many large
i mpact craters on Mars, so this does not seem
improbable. In a large impact, most of the material
excavated, and possibly propelled to a high velocity,
will have come from a considerable depth. If that is
the case, evidence in the meteorite of biological
processes is evidence of life at depth-not of surface
life that was later buried in new surface Martian
sediments.

In a small meteorite on a long flight through space,
the liquid or gaseous products of the deep
microbiology should generally escape in a short
time. It is the solids created by life that give the clue.
What solids should we look for? If carbon-based life
within Mars feeds (or once fed) on primordial
hydrocarbons upwelling from a greater depth, and if
Martian life required oxygen in order to access the
energy offered by the chemical reaction of oxygen
with the hydrocarbon molecules, then one piece of
evidence would be the altered state of the oxygen
donor. If iron oxides served as the oxygen
donor, then the end product would be iron in a less
oxidized state, which happens to be magnetic.
Magnetite is the most common form, and as noted
in Chapter 6, the abundance of exceedingly
small particles of magnetite discovered at depth
in our borehole in Sweden was important
evidence of life at work. Alternatively, if sulfur
oxides were the oxygen donors, we would expect
to see metal sulfides as the permanent remains.
The product of the oxidation of the hydrocarbons
would be carbon dioxide and water, and in
many rocks these would react with oxides of
calcium or magnesium to make solid
carbonates. In our own deep biosphere, the
carbonate by-products of life take the form of
cements that fill up small pore spaces.

We know that highly oxidized iron is abundant on
Mars, and very small-grained magnetite has in fact
been detected in the Martian meteorite that has
been studied for signs of biological alteration. That
meteorite also contains iron sulfide and carbonate
cements. Moreover, it contains polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, which could be the large molecules
that remain of a primordial crude oil once contained
in the rock, whose lighter molecules vanished after
many millennia of exposure to the vacuum of space.
In addition, the meteorite contains small objects,
detectable under scanning electron microscopy, that
may well be fossils of microbes. Although the
purported fossils by themselves would not be
conclusive evidence, the association of magnetite,
iron sulfide, carbonates, and heavy hydrocarbons, to
my mind, makes a strong case for the microbial
explanation. It is true that each item can be produced
without biological intervention, but the odds of
finding them together accidentally in a small
volume would be very low. Many terrestrial oil and
gas wells show just such an association (but an
association with
helium also, which the meteorite could not have
transported through space).

The case for subsurface life dwelling within Mars
is now so tantalizing that a visit to Mars may be
scientifically very productive on this question. For
future interplanetary missions that could return a
sample to the earth, it would be best to go to
locations where material is now exposed that must
once have been at some depth.10 The floor of the
deep "Valles Marineris" is such a place.
There, massive landslides have exposed material
that must once have been at a depth well into the
liquid water domain. Large impacts will also have
dug deep into the water domain, so samples
that have been tossed up in such events may
also show water- related effects.

In my 1992 paper presenting the deep hot
biosphere idea, I suggested that perhaps 10
planetary bodies in our solar system would provide
suitable subsurface homes for fundamentally the
same kind of life as we have within the earth." I
made that prediction by using a rather simple and
generic formula: Any rocky planetary body at least as
big as the earth's moon might be expected to offer
the requisite subsurface conditions of heat and
upwelling hydrocarbons.

Two considerations led me to choose our moon
as the lower size limit for a subsurface biosphere.
First, bodies smaller than our moon will probably fail
to support liquid water even at depth. Second,
empirical evidence indicated the presence of lunar
hydrocarbons. The only conceivable cause of the
deep, internal quakes that have been observed on
the tectonically frozen moon is the opening and
closing of pores as fluids upwell. There, as with the
earth, those fluids should contain primordial
hydrocarbons. An instrument placed on the moon by
an Apollo mission detected gas particles of mass 16
(in atomic mass units) at the times of such quakes. I
do not know of any atom or molecule of that mass
that would be stable and unreactive enough to have
made its way through the lunar rocks, other than
methane.

In 1992 I thus concluded that subsurface life was
indeed possible within a number of planetary
bodies. But I could not then judge whether
extraterrestrial life was not just possible but
probable-perhaps even common. Since then I have
become convinced that life is highly probable within
those bodies. I have no more substantial empirical
evidence now than I had then. The argument, rather,
is based on logic. To begin with, I assume not
only that the deep biosphere within the
earth is independent of surface life but also that
it was the progenitor of surface life. If I am correct in
concluding that 10 planetary bodies offer subsurface
conditions suitable for life, and that our own
planet alone is suitable for surface life, then it
would be highly improbable that a deep
biosphere happened to develop only on the one
planet that could also support surface life.
Independent Beginnings or Panspermia?



f subsurface life does exist elsewhere in this
solar system, would it have originated independently
on each planetary body? Or might there be natural
mechanisms by which life is transported from one
planet or moon to another? This latter mode of
interplanetary biological infection has come to be
called panspermia.

To answer these questions, we would need to
consider whether microbial life might evolve
spontaneously in all locations that are favorable.
What is the likelihood that life of independent origin
would have adopted a similar basic chemistry? And
if interplanetary infection were a mechanism, how
would it work?

If on another planetary body we were to find a type
of biology that used quite different basic steps of
chemistry, outside the range of the variants we have
observed for earth life, we would conclude (though
not with complete certainty) that it represented an
independent origin. That discovery would suggest, in
turn, that some variants of life should arise with high
probability in many other favorable locations. But if
w e saw life forms with a similar basic chemistry,
could we then make a distinction between
panspermia and a very closely parallel evolution?
Perhaps our own biochemistry is the only one that
could make functional organisms, in which case no
other would be found. Or perhaps ours is one of a
small number of possible biochemistries and, for this
reason, would probably be discovered elsewhere.

What if the biochemistry of an extraterrestrial
ecology proved to be nearly the same as that of the
earth-but of the opposite chirality? As in Chapter 9, a
molecule is chiral if there can be another molecule
that is identical to the mirror image of the former but
differs in no other way. DNA, for example, is a helical
molecule that spirals to the right. Its chiral opposite
would be the same molecule spiraling to the left.

If we found, in biological molecules of another
planetary body, the same basic chemistry as the one
we have here, but the chirality was opposite of
ours, we would have substantial evidence to
conclude that life, using the same basic chemistry,
had a good probability of arising independently on
other bodies that had similar subsurface
conditions. If, however, we found the same chirality
there, all we could say would be that they might
derive from an evolution in common with ours
(panspermia), or that an independent origin
favoring the same basic chemistry might have
hit (with a 50-50 chance) on the same chirality as
ours.

If we repeated such observations for yet another
planetary body and thereby obtained a second
extraterrestrial example with the same, earth-like
chirality, we would conclude that the evidence was
beginning to point toward a common origin, because
an independent origin would have had a probability
of only 1 in 4 of providing the same chirality in three
independent cases. The investigations of yet more
planetary bodies would then become essential for
resolving the issue.

By what mechanism might life that originated
within one planetary body spread to another? The
meteorite from Mars that was found in Antarctica
provides the answer: a massive impact that splits off
pi eces of a planet or moon and ejects them into
space. In addition to the trauma of exit from the
home planet and entry into a new one, the lifebearing
rock would be subjected to cosmic rays while in
transit. If the journey were long, the vicissitudes of
extended dormancy would be another challenge for
successful infection of a new planetary body.
Damaging radiations and the passage of time would
become especially severe constraints on the natural
transport of life between star systems-galactic
panspermia. The odds would improve if there were
bodies of planetary size that could support
subsurface biospheres in the space between stars.
The largest sophisticated telescopes would have
great difficulties detecting such bodies.

Molecular clouds might well be forming such dark
objects constantly, and only a fraction would come to
be associated with a star. They could contain, and
maintain for billions of years, an active internal
microbial life, just as seems to be the case for the
earth. Accordingly, they could carry active life at
depth through space over interstellar distances.
When such an object came, perchance, into the
vi cini ty of a planetary system, collisions with planets
would then allow active, living material to be
distributed. Impacts with smaller objects that spall off
pieces like the Martian meteorite could achieve the
same result. In this case there would be no
dependence on dormant life for long periods, nor on
any long-term resistance to damage from cosmic
rays, two problems that have made other galactic-
scale panspermia proposals seem improbable.
Even though the odds against the galactic
panspermia described here are very high, it is not
impossible. Panspermia between planets of one
planetary system would clearly be a possibility, as
the Martian meteorite has shown.

Is all this just idle speculation? Should we take no
notice of the views presented in these chapters?
Should I and others discontinue investigating the
deep hot biosphere and probing for microbial life
beneath the earth's surface? Should the scientific
community also dis courage systematic researches
into the origin of petroleum, the reason for the strong
association of helium with petroleum, the cause of
earthquakes, and why different metal minerals
occur together so frequently in the same location?
These are all features that have yet to be explained
by the reigning theories, so particular attention is
due them (rather than the neglect that inexplicable
phenomena
tend to receive in modern scientific literature). The
history of science offers example after example of
apparently inexplicable features for which perfectly
rational explanations were finally found. In nearly all
such cases, assumptions that were universally
believed obscured the truth so effectively that no
progress toward a solution seemed possible. Yet it
is to just such apparently inexplicable features that
we must hope to find clues that will show us how to
unburden ourselves of false beliefs.

Speculation is a vital step in this process. It was
once speculated that the earth revolved around the
sun. Without this speculation, I do not think that any
systematic avenue of research would have produced
the evidence that clinched this theory. At a time
when proposed solutions are still speculative, they
are the driving force for the researches that will
prove them right or wrong and will thereby put our
thinking on a new and better track.






ince the first publication of this book, in
December 1998, I have only become more
convinced that petroleum and black coal are not
fossil residues that have worked their way down
from the surface of Earth into their subterranean
resting places. This widely accepted view of their
biogenic origin is, in my view, mistaken, and this
book proposes an alternative-namely, that Earth's
massive reserves of hydrocarbons are abiogenic,
that they were part of the primordial "soup" from
whi ch our planet was created, and that to this day
they exist in abundance deep within our planet and
continue to upwell toward the surface.

My reasons for holding this admittedly
controversial view are numerous. First, it has
become quite evident to me that the quantity of black
coal and petroleum (and especially its natural gas
component, methane) are far greater than could be
explained by any theory that depends on
buried biological debris. Second, petroleum and
methane have been found and continue to be
found in locations on Earth to which surface
biological remains have never had access; the
presence of oil and gas at these sites simply
cannot be explained by the biogenic theory. Third,
one finds at these sites none of the other residues
one would expect to find
i n the presence of biogenic hydrocarbons. And
fourth and perhaps most tellingly, it is now generally
agreed that there is a profuse supply of
hydrocarbons on many other bodies in our Solar
System, where no origin from surface biology can be
suggested. Yet the use of the name "fossil fuels" for
Earth's supply of hydrocabons is widespread, giving
the impression that their origin in surface biology has
been established beyond doubt. Any discovery that
conflicts with this old interpretation is still often
described as "most surprising" or "inexplicable,"
even though the evidence, in and of itself, is not
questioned. This lack of connection between
undisputed evidence and generally accepted theory
is especially strange when one considers the widely
held belief that there is a fundamental shortage of
these so-called "fossil fuels." For many decades, as
w e have found more and more reserves of
petroleum and other hydrocarbons, we have
constantly had to revise our estimates upward. To
me the alternate conclusion is inescapable: We are
just not running out of natural gas, oil, and coal, and
after intense usage over a century, we now know of
more reserves than had ever been predicted in the
past.

Any terrestrial hydrocarbon contains molecules
whose biological origin is beyond doubt, but this
does not prove that the hydrocarbon's origin is
biological. The alternative solution, set forth in this
book, is that all petroleum we obtain from the ground
has suffered a large amount of biological
contamination at levels deeper than our drills can
reach. Living material, deep beneath the surface of
our planet, has left its mark on the oil, gas, and black
coal that eventually comes to the surface.

"But the amounts of biological contaminants are
very large," might go a reasonably skeptical counter-
argument: "Where would there be space for all the
living material required in your interpretation? And
what would be its source of nourishment, its source
of carbon and of the many other elements necessary
to support life? And is it conceivable that we would
have failed to become aware of the existence of
such a large underground domain of life?"

If the evidence for the deep origin of petroleum is
strong, as it appears to be, then a massive
underground biology has to exist. This possibility
had not been considered in the past, even though
che mi sts who had studied the composition of
petroleum had strongly hinted at it: "A primordial
substance to which bio-products have been added,"
w a s the description of petroleum by Sir Robert
Robinson, the 1947 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.
Today, however, there is clear evidence for the
existence of a massive deep biosphere. It
represents not just a small perturbation in the
scheme of geochemistry, if it is to account for all the
biological substances that hydrocarbons are
bringing up and have brought up over long periods of
geologic time. It is instead vast. Space for all this
living material is not a problem, provided it is
microbial life, thriving in the pores of rocks. In the
crust of Earth, where porosity of a few percent is
common, and extending over a vertical dimension of
perhaps 10 kilometers, this massive separate
domain of life could amount to far more than the
volume occupied by all surface life.

What about nourishment? Hydrocarbons seeping
upward will supply the carbon, and can supply the
energy for life if oxygen is available for their
combustion. The great supply of oxygen in the
surface atmosphere does not, of course, reach deep
levels. And the oxygen found in subterranean rocks
is too tightly bound to be useful for supporting life, as
i t would take more energy to liberate it than can be
obtained from its use for the combustion of
hydrocarbons. There are, however, a few common
subterranean substances that can deliver oxygen
sufficiently cheaply. The principal ones are oxidized
sulfur in the form of sulfates, and highly oxidized iron,
the residues of which are, respectively, sulfides and
low-oxidation states of iron such as magnetite. And
indeed, massive amounts of sulfides and magnetite
are found just in petroleum-rich areas. Similarly,
there are large number of cracks on the ocean
floor
that vent hydrocarbon gases, and these gases
provide nourishment to profuse microbial life
surrounding the vents. These sites are also
surrounded by large deposits of metal sulfides,
because in this case the oxygen donor appears to
be the sulfate ion, a prominent component of
seawater.

Other evidence for a constant supply of deep-
source oil and gas comes from observations in the
petroleum industry. We have seen oil and gas fields
refilling themselves, sometimes as fast as they were
b e i n g drained, and many fields have already
produced several times as much as earlier
estimates predicted. Petroleum scientists have also
found that oil often contains trace elements quite
different from what could be expected from the rock
underlying a particular field. Nickel and vanadium
have long been recognized in this category, but we
must add to the list the inert gas helium, whose
concentration has no other explanation than a deep
origin, as well as a number of metals that are
considered to come from much deeper levels-
including iridium, gold, silver, and platinum.

In looking at the petroleum industry, one also has
to consider the widespread and unexpected locales
in which drilling is now taking place. In Russia, a
major project has been under way to establish the
extent to which bedrock, rather than sediments,
contain hydrocarbons. More than 300 deep
holes have been drilled in Tatarstan (in Central
Russia), all into broken-up basement rock, to
depths of 5 kilometers or more. The majority
showed the presence of high levels of
hydrocarbons. About a hundred wells in other
parts of the world exist that were also drilled in
basement rock, and many are producing
petroleum. Among those, the recent discovery of
a major off-shore site in Vietnam, the White Tiger
field, is of particular interest, as very good oil
production, largely from basement rock, is in
progress there.
Then there is the evidence from the sea. Methane
hydrate, an ice made up of a water-methane
combination, covers very large areas of ocean floor,
and the total quantities of the element carbon
contained in this substance is estimated to be
greater than the carbon contained in all coal and oil
that has been identified the world over. This
concentration of carbon could not have arisen from
surface plant material sinking down, as such a
supply is far too small and would have brought much
other material down with it, which is not there. But
beyond that, how could layers many meters thick
composed of this solid ice have formed from a
supply from above, when neither plant material nor
b a r e methane gas could penetrate downward
through the ice? Yet large bubbles of gas are
detected, held down between the rock of the ocean
floor and the ice layer above. This gas cannot have
reached such locations except from cracks in the
rocks below. Widespread methane outgassing is
also indicated by land-based permafrost
having similarly sealed-up methane hydrates as
well as pockets of methane gas. This would
imply that methane outgassing of the earth is a
widespread or general process, quite in accord with
the information we have from the ocean vents
and their rapidly growing colonies of life.

Added to this are sudden outbursts of gas from
the ocean floor. In some cases these violent
phenomena have been directly observed, as in the
eruption that caused a devastating tsunami on the
coast of Papua, New Guinea, in July 1998. It has
now been widely recognized that certain features of
the ocean floor can be interpreted only as the result
o f the explosive eruptions of gas. Some have
created circular depressions of as much as 200
meters in diameter, and have been found in many
areas, including the East Coast of the United States,
but also specifically in areas known to produce
commercial quantities of natural gas, such as the
North Sea and the East Coast of New Zealand.
Measurements of gradual seepage of gas at quiet
times have shown methane to be the principal
component of these outbursts.
In this picture we can then understand that
petroleum comes from deep levels in the Earth, from
vastly larger reservoirs far below our reach, just as it
must have done on the numerous other Solar
System bodies that show large amounts of
petroleum, but possess no surface life. On the way
up, at levels that an oil prospector would call deep,
but still much shallower than the origin of the
petroleum, the temperature falls to levels at which
some microbial life is possible, and where this life
finds rich food supplies in these hydrocarbons and
becomes prolific. This food supply is from chemical
sources that Earth itself provides; it is not related to
the photosynthesis of the surface. We are looking at
an independent domain of life, not at an extension of
the surface life we know. The quantities of microbial
material in this biosphere can be estimated in two
ways: one is from the microbial debris that remains
in the hydrocarbon deposits, the other is from the
solid mineral residue the microbial actions have left
behind. Once these estimates are made, we arrive
at quantities that are so large that it is now
questionable whether by mass our surface
biosphere is the principal domain of life on earth: it
may be that this distinction belongs instead to the
microbial mass in the pores of Earth's rocks.

The one connection between the two biospheres
we see is the genetic one. The deep biosphere
uses the same genetic processes and molecules
as the surface biosphere, so presumably one
derived from the other. But which came first?

Photosynthesis, which is the primary energy
source for surface life, is a very complex-one might
even say "fragile"-process. It cannot have stood at
the beginning of life. Elaborate chemical processing
must first have been invented, and the earlier life that
gave rise to this processing must have had simpler
chemical energy sources available to it. That alone
would favor the deep biosphere for the beginning of
life, but there are several other considerations that
point the same way.

The most primitive forms of microbes, and
therefore judged the earliest, belong to a distinctive
branch. The physicist and microbiologist Carl
Woese has shown that this branch is sufficiently
different from bacteria that it should be given a its
own classification, and has proposed the name
"archea" for it. It has now been shown that the
majority of thermophiles (heat-loving microbes)
belong to this class, prompting the suggestion that
life's origin was in warm or hot surroundings. This
again favors the deep biosphere, which provides
l o n g periods of near-constant environmental
conditions. In such an environment, an emerging life
would not be interrupted by rapid changes, for
example, in temperature, humidity, radiation, or
winds, as would be the case on the surface.

Microbial life, or even smaller forms, would be the
most likely candidate to take the first steps toward
self-replicating complex life, if only on the grounds of
probability. Microbial life displays by far the fastest
adaptations, the fastest development of new
features by Darwinian selection, because of its
short cycles of reproduction and the large
number of individual organisms in any one
generation. For the same reason, we would also
look for the beginnings of advanced life at the
largest domain of microbial life we now know-and
again, the deep biosphere fills the bill.

Much discussion of the origin of life has centered
on the picture of a warm pool containing an
assortment of elements or chemical compounds
favorable for the creation of the chemistry of life. But
there would be a problem. An essential aspect of life
is reproduction, the re-creation of an existing form.
Such a process must necessarily lead to an
exponential increase of the numbers with time. If the
first organism reproduces one like itself in a time T,
then after a time 2T there will be 4, after 10T there
will be 1024, and after 100T the result will be 1030:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
However large the pond may have been and
however much "food" it may have contained, it
would soon have been exhausted. The
inevitable consequence is a brief feast
followed by final famine. How does existing life
avoid this, and go on for a long time? It does
so only if there is the stabilizing effect of a food
supply that is limited at any time, but constantly
renewed. In our surface life we are so familiar
with this, that we forget how essential it is.
Here, on the surface, the sunlight is the limited and
renewed energy supply; its energy is doled out
each day, and it rises each morning (not forever,
but for a very long time). The deep hot
biosphere escapes the feast-and-famine situation by
supporting life with the continuous, long-lived
seepage of chemicals from sources that are too
deep and hence too hot to be available to the life
forms we have. So food supply at a "metered-out"
rate exists there, just as it does on the surface.

All life is essentially an extension of the process of
autocatalysi s, the replication of an entity such as a
molecule. If we look to chance chemical processes
to assemble an autocatalytic molecule as the first
step, then the high-pressure, high-temperature
circumstance at depth would be favorable. There will
be more and faster chemical interactions taking
place than in cooler, lower-pressure situations, and
hence the probability of setting up an extraordinary
molecule will be greatest there. Furthermore, the
number of different types of molecules that are
stable is greatly enhanced by pressure. The
deep, hot, high-pressure biosphere is the best
place to look for the formation of such a vast array
of different molecules, that the chance of forming an
autocatalyst accidentally, perhaps only in long
geologic times and in vast quantities of reactive
materials, becomes a reasonable possibility. And
a single autocatalytic
molecule will dominate over all the rest in a small
number of reproduction periods (like 100), as we
have already seen above.

Life may have evolved as an exceedingly unlikely
event of ordinary chemistry, but in circumstances
where the number of chemical processes was so
large that the unlikely became likely. We may think
then of biospheres in other planetary bodies in which
there are similar circumstances as those we see
here. In such a picture the adaptation to surface life,
and then to large and complex life forms, would take
place only on a planet whose surface conditions fall
into the narrow range of conditions that support
complex life. But life at depth ... that is another story.

Thomas Gold
Ithaca, New York
February 2001



CHAPTER 1
Notes

1. I first published the idea that hydrocarbons were
not of biological origin in an op-ed piece,
"Rethinking the origins of oil and gas," Wall Street
Journal, June 8, 1977. The idea was more fully
developed in my 1979 "Terrestrial sources of carbon
and earthquake outgassing," Journal of Petroleum
Geology 1(3): 3-19. See also Thomas Gold and
Steven Soter, 1980. "The deep-earth gas
hypothesis," Scientific American 242: 154-61. The
idea is also the core of my 1987 book Power from
the Earth: Deep Earth Gas-Energy for the Future
(London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

2. The existence and naming of a "deep hot
biosphere" were first proposed in Thomas Gold,
1992, "The deep, hot biosphere," Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 89: 6045-49.

3. P.N. Kropotkin reviews the history of the
abiogenic theory of the origin of hydrocarbons in his
1997 "On the history of science: Professor N.A.
Koudryavtsev and the development of the theory of
origin of oil and gas," Earth Sciences History 16: 17-
20.

4. My prediction of ten deep hot biospheres in the
solar system appears in Thomas Gold, 1992, "The
deep, hot biosphere," Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 89: 6045-49.
CHAPTER 2

1. A recent review article of the discovery and
subsequent studies of the deep-ocean vent
ecosystem is Daniel L. Distel, 1998, "Evolution of
chemoau totrophic endosymbiosis in bivalves,"
BioScience 48(4): 277-86. See also the contributed
chapters contained in David M. Karl, ed., 1995, The
Mi crobi ology of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents
(Boca Raton: CRC Press).

2. For a review of the publications that have
reported methanotrophs in the deep-ocean vent
communities, and as symbionts of the macrofauna,
see Distell 1998, as cited in note 1.

3. Thomas D. Brock, 1978, Thermophilic
Microorganisms and Life at High Temperatures
(New York: Springer-Verlag).

4. C.K. Paull et al., 1984, "Biological communities
at the Florida Escarpment resemble hydrothermal
vent taxa," Science 226: 965-67. Also, M.C. Ken-
nicutt et al., 1985, "Vent-type taxa in a hydrocarbon
seep region on the Louisiana Slope," Nature
317:
351-52.

5. The discovery of the cave in Romania was
reported in Serban M. Sarbu, Thomas C. Kane, and
Brian K. Kinkle, 1996, "A chemoautotrophically
based cave ecosystem," Science 272: 1953-55.
See also media reports in the June 1996 issue of
Science News (vol. 149, p. 405) and the January
1997 issue of Discover (p. 59).

6. The bacterial shrouds in the Mexican cave are
reported in Charles Petit, 1998, "The walls are
alive," U.S. News and World Report, February 9, pp.
59-60.

7. J. Cynan Ellis-Evans and David Wynn-Williams,
1996, "A great lake under the ice," Nature 381: 644-
46.

8. NASA's interest in Lake Vostok is reported in
Richard Stone, 1998, "Russian outpost readies for
otherworldly quest," Science 279: 658-61.

9. Conditions for methane hydrate formation are
presented in Ian R. MacDonald, 1997, "Bottom line
for hydrocarbons," Nature 385: 389-90.
10. K.A. Kvenvolden and L.A. Barnard, 1982,
"Hydrates of natural gas in continental margins," in
J.S. Watkins and C.L. Drake, eds., Studies in
Continental Margin Geology, AAPG Memoir 34, pp.
631-40.

11. A comparison of unoxidized carbon in
methane hydrates versus other hydrocarbons is
given in Carl Zimmer, 1997, "Their game is mud,"
Discover, May, pp. 28-30.

12. W. Steven Holbrook et al., 1996, "Methane
hydrate and free gas on the Blake Ridge
from vertical seismic profiling," Science 273: 1840-
43.

13. Accumulations of methane hydrates in
permafrost and elsewhere are discussed in Yuri F.
Makogan, 1981, Hydrates of Natural Gas (Tulsa:
Penn Well Books).

14. The pink worms feeding on methane hydrates
were reported in (anonymous), 1997, "Ice worms in
the Gulf," Science 277: 769.

15. The threshold temperature for
hyperthermophiles is defined in John A. Baross and
James F. Holden, 1996, "Overview of
hyperthermophiles and their heat-shock proteins,"
Advances in Protein Chemistry 48: 1-34.

16. John Postage, 1994, The Outer Reaches of
Life (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press) p. 15.

17. That pressure may help maintain "the
functional configuration of macro-molecules," is
suggested in Baross and Holden (note 15).

18. Speculations on the upper temperature limit of
life are presented in Baross and Holden 1996 (note
15).

19. Thomas Gold, 1992, "The deep, hot
biosphere," Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA 89: 6045-49.

20. For a review of the debate about whether
deep microbial life is indigenous or results
from surface contamination, see John Parkes and
James Maxwell, 1993, "Some like it hot (and oily),"
Nature
365: 694-95.

21. S. L'Harldon et al., 1995, "Hot subterranean
biosphere in a continental oil reservoir," Nature 377:
223-24. The authors contend that because "the
thermophilic isolates were repeatedly obtained from
different wells and thrived in media similar to
conditions in the wells" that "these isolates are
members of a deep indigenous thermophilic
community."

22. W.S. Fyfe, 1996, The biosphere is going
deep," Science 273: 448. An early and often-cited
paper reporting hyperthermophilic life at a depth of 3
kilometers in Alaskan oil reservoirs is K.O. Stetter et
al., 1993, "Hyperthermophilic archaea are thriving in
deep North Sea and Alaskan oil reservoirs," Nature
365: 743-45.

23. Richard Monastersky, 1997, "Signs of ancient
life in deep, dark rock," Science News 152: 181.

24. U. Szevtzyk et al., 1994, "Thermophilic,
anaerobic bacteria isolated from a deep borehole in
granite in Sweden," Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA 91: 1810-13.

25. The deep hot biosphere theory (see note 19)
is cited, for example, in John Parkes and James
Maxwell, 1993, "Some like it hot (and oily)," Nature
365: 694-95; in William J. Broad, 1993, "Strange
new microbes hint at a vast subterranean world,"
New York Times, December 28, pp. C1, C14;
R i c ha r d Monastersky, 1997, "Deep dwellers,"
Science News 151: 192-93; and in J.R. Delaney et
al., 1998, "The quantum event of oeanic crustal
accretion: Impacts of diking at mid-ocean ridges,"
Science 281: 222-30.
26. Even when hydrocarbons (usually methane)
are discovered in crystalline bedrock far from a
sedimentary source, the hydrocarbons are
presumed to be of biological origin. Microbes
feeding thereupon are thus judged to be dependent
on buried organic products of the photosynthetic,
surface biosphere. See, for example, Karsten
Pedersen, 1996, "Investigations of subterranean
bacteria in deep crystalline bedrock," Canadian
Journal of Microbiology 42: 382-91. See also
Delaney et al., note 25.

27. Todd O. Stevens and James P. McKinley,
1995, "Lithoautotrophic microbial ecosystems in
deep basalt aquifers," Nature 270: 450-54. See also
the companion news piece by Jocelyn Kaiser, p.
377. And see James K. Fredrickson and Tullis C.
Onstott, 1996, "Microbes deep inside the earth,"
Scientific American, October, pp. 68-73.

28. Stevens and McKinley (note 27) wrote that
"High concentrations of dissolved methane have
been observed locally in the Columbia River Basalt
Group, and natural gas was commercially exploited
early in this century, but the origin of the gas is
uncertain."

29. Petra Rueter et al., 1994, "Anaerobic
oxidation of hydrocarbons in crude oil by new types
of sulphate-reducing bacteria," Nature 372: 455-58.

30. The story of Carl Woese's successful effort to
revise fundamentally the taxonomic classification of
life is told in Virginia Morell, 1997, "Microbiology's
scarred revolutionary," Science 276: 699-702.

31. C.J. Bult et al., 1996, "Complete genome
sequence of the methanogenic archaeon
Methanococcus jannaschii, "Science 273: 1058-73.
CHAPTER 3

1. I have here adapted portions of an invited
speech I delivered in 1988 at the IBM conference
"Science and the Unexpected." The speech was
later transcribed and published as "New ideas in
science" in a 1989 issue of the Journal of Scien- tifc
Exploration 3(2):103-12. It was also published that
same year as "The inertia of scientific thought,"
Speculations in Science and Technology 12:245-53.

2. My earliest writing on the deep-earth gas theory
is my 1977 op. ed. essay "Rethinking the origins of
oil and gas," Wall Street Journal, June 8. Later
writings include Thomas Gold and Steven Soter,
1980, "The deep-earth gas hypothesis," Scientific
American 242: 154-61; and Thomas Gold, 1985,
" The origin of natural gas and petroleum and the
prognosis for future supplies," Annual Review of
Energy 10: 53-77.

3. Petroleum geologist and deep-gas
entrepreneur Robert A. Hefner, III, has been
very much interested in and supportive of the deep-
earth gas theory from the start. See his 1993
"New thinking about natural gas," in David G.
Howell, ed., The Future of Energy Gases, USGS
Professional Paper 1570.

4. Soon after developing my idea of a deep hot
biosphere (then called "A hot, deep biosphere"), I
submitted a paper with that title to Nature. This was
June 1983. The paper was rejected. In May 1988 I
tried again, this time with the title "Have we
discovered a second domain of life on the earth?" I
was of course referring to a second and
independent biosphere in the deep earth. It was
clear that rejection was inevitable for this paper, too,
so I withdrew it and submitted it to a journal that is
very reputable but not dominated by peer review.
Any member of the National Academy of Sciences,
as I was, could have a paper published, provided
that concurrence could be obtained from two other
members of the writer's choice. Thus in 1992,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
USA (89: 6045-49) published my "Deep, hot
biosphere" paper, upon the concurrence of Dr. Carl
Woese and Dr. Gordon MacDonald.

5. E.M. Galimov, 1975, Carbon Isotopes in Oil-
Gas geology, NTIS translation, pp. 335-36.

6. The formation of the earth and the primordial
origin of hydrocarbons is covered in more detail in
my chapter "Carbon-the element of life: What is its
origin on earth?", Hermann Bondi and Miranda
Weston-Smith, eds., 1993, The Universe Unfolding
(Oxford, England: Clarendon Press).

7. This notion of a cool early earth is discussed in
more detail in my 1985 paper "The origin of natural
gas and petroleum, and the prognosis for future
supplies," Annual Review of Energy 10: 53-77.

8. E.B. Chekaliuk, 1976, "The thermal stability of
hydrocarbon systems in geothermodynamic
conditions," in P. N. Kropotkin, ed., 1980,
Degasatsiia Zemli i Geotektonica (Moscow: Nauka),
pp. 267-72.

9. This discussion of thermodynamic stability of
hydrocarbons at depth is drawn from my 1985 paper
cited in note 6.
CHAPTER 4

1. This series of supporting claims for the
abiogenic theory is more fully developed in my 1993
paper "The origin of methane in the crust of the
earth," in David G. Howell, ed., The Future of Energy
Gases, USGS Professional Paper 1570.

2. Koudryavtsev's rule is discussed in P.N.
Kropotkin, 1997, "On the history of science:
Professor N.A. Koudryavtsev and the development
of the theory of origin of oil and gas," Earth Sciences
History 16: 13-20.

3. Estimates of the possible volume of methane
hydrates just below the surface in cold regions (and
below the deep ocean) were made by Keith A.
Kvenvolden, 1988, "Methane hydrate: A major
reservoir of carbon in the shallow geosphere?"
Chemical Geology 71: 41-51; and also by G.J.
MacDonald, 1990, "Role of methane clathrates in
past and future climates," Climatic Change 16: 247-
81. See also Keith A. Kvenvolden, 1993, "A primer
on gas hydrates," in David G. Howell, ed., The
Future of Energy Gases, USGS Professional Paper
1570.

4. Refilling hydrocarbon reservoirs are
documented in Robert F. Mahfoud and James N.
Beck, 1995, "Why the Middle East fields may
produce oil forever," Offshore, April, pp. 56-62.
Documentation of refilling reservoirs along the U.S.
Gulf Coast is provided in Jean K. Whelan,
1997, "The dynamic migration hypothesis,"
Sea Technology, September, pp. 10-18. See also
Jean K. Whelan et al., 1993, "Organic
geochemical indicators of dynamic fluid flow
processes in petroleum basins," Advances in
Organic Chemistry
22: 587-615.

5. My discussion of carbonates is more fully
developed in my 1993 USGS paper cited in note 1.

6. Among petroleum geologists, the view is
widely held that in methane a deficiency of
the heavy isotope by more than about 2 percent
(20 per mil in t h e conventional units) characterizes
this gas as being "unquestionably" of biogenic
origin. This view is held despite many observational
items that are in sharp conflict with it and despite
the expectation that such fractionation would occur
readily in migration of methane through tight rocks.
How strongly this view is held by some, and how
influential it has been, is shown, for example, in a
paper by P.J. McCabe, D.L. Gautier, M.D. Lewan,
and C. Turner (members o f the U.S. Geological
Survey) in "The future of energy gases," USGS
Circular 1115, 1993. They conclude: "So far no
economic accumulations of gas have been found
that cannot be explained by the
organic theory. Geochemical analysis
from
producing fields in the United States, for example,
clearly shows that over 99 percent of the gas is of
organic origin".

The question about the nature of the geochemical
analysis involved that clearly showed this was
never answered, despite repeated requests.
The only types of analyses that might be involved
would be the association with other gases and
the carbon isotope ratio of the methane. The
carbon isotope ratio is almost certainly the effect
on which these authors hung this
unsubstantiated statement, because quite likely over
99 percent of commercial methane shows a
deficiency of carbon-13, greater than some
arbitrary value that they deem to make the
distinction between biogenic and abiogenic
gases. Moreover, some commercial methane shows
a much larger deficiency than can be explained by
plant photosynthesis of any known vegetation (-75
per mil), so a fractionation along a migration path
has to be invoked in any case.

The association with helium is not mentioned in
their paper but would, in fact, rule out any biogenic
origin. For example, the Texas Hugoton Field is a
major natural gas-producing region, and the gas
fields contain more helium than could have been
produced by radioactivity in the sediments in their
enti re age, even if none had escaped. Only an
ongoing supply of the gas mix from very deep
levels can account for this.

The authors write in the same paper: "Clearly
methane can be purely inorganic in nature and, in
fact, most scientists agree that at least some of the
methane on Earth is not of organic origin. Methane
that emanates from midoceanic ridges, for example,
contains what is generally agreed to be
mantlederived methane. But even though some
inorganic methane is known to exist, most scientists
doubt that commercial quantities of the gas ever
escape the Earth's mantle because carbon dioxide
and water are the main fluids in the mantle." (The
italics are mine.)

It is worth noting that the ocean-vent methane,
which they agree is abiogenic, also has a substantial
deficiency of carbon-13, ranging from -15.0 to -17.6
(in the usual notation), demonstrating that
isotopic fractionation had occurred there also. In
that case, why do we find mantle-derived
diamonds and graphite? These are not
produced from carbon dioxide and water. And why
do we find much greater quantities of methane than
of CO2 in all deep holes that have been drilled?

7. The uniformity in isotopic ratios of carbonates
of vastly different ages is discussed in M.
Schidlowski, R. Eichmann, and C.E. Jung, 1975,
"PreCambrian sedimentary carbonates: Carbon and
oxygen isotope geochemistry and implications for
the terrestrial oxygen budget," Precambrian
Research 2: 1-69.

8. Another point in favor of the abiogenic
theory concerns the amount of free oxygen
in the atmosphere. If all of the hydrocarbons
within the earth's crust were attributable to the burial
of surface life, then a very large surplus of free
oxygen (a by- product of photosynthesis) would
have been left behind in the atmosphere-
more than 10 atmospheres of oxygen alone.
The present atmosphere contains only about
a fifth of 1 atmosphere of oxygen, and it seems
doubtful that a surplus 50 times greater could
have disappeared without leaving a clear record. If,
on the other hand, the largest part of the deposits of
unox idized carbon in the ground were
deposited from unoxidized, carbon-bearing fluids
coming up from below and not from materials taken
down from the surface, then the discrepancy would
disappear.

The strong association of helium with methane is
presented in many papers of which I will give a
selection here:
9. T. Gold and M. Held, 1987, "Helium-nitrogen-
methane systematics in natural gases of Texas and
Kansas," Journal of Petroleum Geology 10: 415-24.

10. J.A. Welhan and H. Craig, 1983, "Methane,
hydrogen and helium in hydrothermal fluids at 21N
on the East Pacific Rise," in P.A. Rona, ed.,
Hydrothermal Processes at Seafloor Spreading
Centers, (Plenum Press), 391-409.

11. H. Craig gives a good overview of
isotope separation process in various subsurface
conditions and various gas mixes in his
1968 "Isotope separation by carrier diffusion,"
Science 159: 93-96 (January 5, 1968). There
are several other fractionation processes for
carbon isotopes discussed in the scientific
literature that are beyond the scope of this book, but
the processes based on diffusion speed seem to
be the dominant ones.

12. V.F. Nikonov, 1969, "Relation of helium to
petroleum hydrocarbons," Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR.
Earth Sci. Sect. 188: 199-201.

13. V.F. Nikonov, 1973, "Formation of helium-
bearing gases and trends in prospecting for
them," Internat. Geol. Rev. 15: 534-41. Nikonov
shows not only the high degree of association
between natural hydrocarbon gases and oils but
also that particular mixes of petroleum hydrocarbons
are more enriched in helium than other types
worldwide.

14. L.A. Pogorski and G.S. Quirt, 1978, "Helium
emanometry in exploring for hydrocarbons: Part 1,"
Proceedings of Symposium 1 on Unconventional
Methods in Exploration for Petroleum and Natural
Gas, pp. 124-29.

15. A.A. Roberts, 1978, "Helium emanometry in
exploring for hydrocarbons: Part II." Proceedings of
Symposium II on Unconventional Methods in
Exploration for Petroleum and Natural Gas, pp.136-
49. The association of helium with hydrocarbons is
shown also by the results that the helium seepage
above oil and gas fields is so clear that helium
surface measurements constitute a good method of
locating hydrocarbon fields below. This
demonstrates that helium is not just generally welling
up in an area and just happens occasionally to be
held in a trap that also holds hydrocarbons (as has
sometimes been suggested) but rather that the
surface presence of helium specifies the particular
location of a hydrocarbon and helium field below.

16. W. Dyck and C.E. Dunn, 1986, "Helium and
methane anomalies in domestic well waters in
southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada, and their
relationship to other dissolved constituents, oil and
gas fields, and tectonic patterns," Journal of
Geophysical Research 91: 12343-53.

The abundance ratio of the two stable isotopes of
helium, helium-4, the common one, and the rare
helium-3, has been measured in many locations
(although the measurement requires very
refined techniques). The results are of great
significance for the discussion of the origin of
hydrocarbons because a clear tendency exists for a
slightly higher proportion of He-3 to be in
helium that bears evidence of having come up
from very deep levels. This effect has been given
the explanation (almost certainly correctly) that
small amounts of this gas come from a mix that
was put into the forming earth and caught in the
infalling solids. Solar and solar system gases
contain the original isotopic mix supplied by
the nuclear furnaces in stars, and this has a much
higher concentration of He-3 than any helium on
the surface of the earth, which was produced
by the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium,
making almost entirely He-4. The outgassing
of helium will have removed the original m i x from
the outer layers, and hence we see elevated
levels of helium-3 only from depths from which
such outgassing has still not been complete.

While this allows us to identify sources of gas that
contain an excess of He-3 as having come
from
some depth, it does not allow us to conclude that
sources not showing a He-3 excess come from
shallow levels. The mantle is not homogeneous and
will have behaved quite differently in different
regions. Helium outgassing is dependent on
other gases having washed up through the
pathways. A pathway that has long been flushed
will have lost its primordial helium and just deliver
the currently made He-4, while a pathway that has
only been opened up in recent geological times will
still show its primordial components. The
heterogeneity of the mantle, the depth of origin
of the gas, and the age of the pathway to the
top will together define the isotopic ratio that will
be observed. Hydrocarbon-rich areas are
particularly prone to show elevated levels of He-
3, and this makes a strong case that they have had a
deep origin. Areas that do not have such an excess
may have had a shallower origin, but they may also
have had a deep origin from which they ascended
on older, better swept pathways.

I am citing here a few of the papers from the
large store of literature on the relations of
He-3 to petroleum:

17. IN. Tolstikhin, B.A. Mamyrin, E.A. Baskov, I.L.
Kamenskii, G.A. Anufriev, and S.N. Surikov, 1975,
"Helium isotopes, in gases from hot springs of the
Kurile-Kamchatka volcanic region," in A.I. Tugarinov,
ed., Recent Contributions to Geochemistry and
Analytical Chemistry, (New York: John Wiley &
Sons), 456-65.

18. IN. Tolstikhin, 1975, "Helium isotopes in the
Earth's interior and in the atmosphere: A degassing
model of the Earth." Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26: 88-
96.

19. H. Wakita and Y. Sano, 1983, "3He/4He ratios
in CH4-rich natural gases suggest magmatic origin,"
Nature 305: 792-94.

20. J.A. Welhan, W. Rison, R. Poreda, and H.
Craig, 1983, "Geothermal gases of the Mud Volcano
Area, Yellowstone National Park," EOS 64: 882.

21. H. Craig and J.E. Lupton, 1981, "Helium-3
and mantle volatiles in the ocean and the oceanic
crust," The Oceanic Lithosphere, vol. 7. The Sea
(New York: John Wiley & Sons), 391-428.

22. H. Craig, W.B. Clarke, and M.A. Beg,
1975, "Excess 3He in deep water on the East
Pacific Rise," Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26: 125-32.

23. H. Craig, J.E. Lupton, J.A. Welhan, and R.
Poreda, 1978, "Helium isotope ratios in Yellowstone
and Lassen Park volcanic gases," Geophys. Res.
Lett. 5: 897-900.

24. W. J. Jenkins, J. M. Edmond, and J. B.
Corliss, 1978, "Excess 3He and 4He in Galapagos
submarine hydrothermal waters," Nature 272: 156-
58.

25. J.E. Lupton and H. Craig, 1975, "Excess
3He in oceanic basalts: Evidence for terrestrial
primordial helium," Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26: 133-
39.

26. J.E. Lupton, and H. Craig, 1981, "A major
helium-3 source at 15S on the East Pacific Rise,"
Science 214: 13-18.

27. J.E. Lupton, G.P. Klinkhammer, W.R.
Normark, R. Haymon, K.C. MacDonald, R.F. Weiss,
and H. Craig, 1980, "Helium-3 and manganese at
the 21N East Pacific Rise hydrothermal site,"
Earth Planet. Sci. 50: 115-27.
CHAPTER 5

1. This series of four supporting claims for the
biogenic theory appears in my 1993 "The origin of
methane in the crust of the earth," in David G.
Howell, ed., The Future of Energy Gases,
USGS Professional Paper 1570.

2. I developed the deep hot biosphere solution to
the petroleum paradox over an extended period,
beginning almost twenty years ago. In preparing
these notes, an assistant (Connie Barlow) and I
culled through my files in an attempt to find written
expressions of my transformation in thinking, when I
was beginning to supplement the deep-earth gas
theory with the deep hot biosphere theory but had
not yet come to a full appreciation of the relationship.
Two items caught our attention. In a transcript of an
interview conducted by John Maddox for the BBC
and broadcast in June 1978, as part of the
"Scientifically Speaking" radio program, it is clear
that I had not yet begun to entertain the idea that
microbes might live at depth-or at least I wasn't
willing to voice this hypothesis. I said, "In recent
years, one has found a lot more gas, deeper than
any oil and very methane-clean with no other
hydrocarbons. I tend to think that mostly it is primeval
material, but of course the fact that there is
undoubtedly biogenic hydrocarbon in the ground
makes it very hard to distinguish the two."

Five years later I was ready to take the discussion
much further. In an interview published in the March
1983 issue of Montana Oil journal, I said this: "The
genuinely biological content of most oils is only a
small fraction and [is] by no means difficult to
account for. When an oil is in fossiliferous
sediments, it will certainly leach out all the oil-soluble
biological material. Also, oil is a very desirable
substance for various forms of microbiology, and we
see clearly that where the temperature of the oil is
low enough for this to flourish, the biological markers
are present."

Two months later, in June 1983, I submitted my
paper, "A hot, deep biosphere," to Nature. Refer to
note 4 in Chapter 3 for the history of my attempt to
get this idea published.

3. Guy Ourisson, Pierre Albrecht, and Michel
Rohmer, August 1984, "The microbial origin of
fossil fuels," Scientific American 251(2): 44-51.
4. My reply to the Ourrison et al. paper was
published in November 1984, Scientific American
251(5): 6.

5. In 1984, at the time of the Ourisson paper, no
distinction had yet been made between bacteria and
archaea.

6. Robert Robinson, 1963, "Duplex origin of
petroleum," Nature 199: 113-14.

7. My estimate of the microbial biomass at depth
was published in Thomas Gold, 1992, "The deep,
hot biosphere," Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 89: 6045-49.

8, While this book was in the page proof stage, an
important paper was published that qualitatively
corroborates my projections of a very large biomass
contained within the deep hot biosphere: J.R.
Delaney et al., 1998, "The quantum event of oceanic
crustal accretion: Impacts of diking at mid-ocean
ridges," Science 281: 222-30. The authors describe
a previously unknown phenomenon of sudden and
massive release of hydrothermal fluids on the ocean
fl o o r. Because these fluids contained "massive
effusions of microbial products," the authors inferred
that the biological activity must have occurred before
the fluid ejection, in "warmer subseafloor habitats."
Their conclusion: "The zone in the crust occupied by
thermophiles may be extensive." They also stated,
"Massive and sustained output of microbial products
associated with diking lend support to recent
postulates of a significant deep hot biosphere within
the Earth." My 1992 paper is among the references
cited with that statement.

Because of my contention (in Chapter 8) that
upwelling plumes of methane are the cause of many
earthquakes, the observation by Delaney et al. that
"earthquake swarms" seem to accompany the
release of the hydrothermal fluids is of great interest
to me.
9. Ourisson et al. wrote, "Because of the
difference in age and because the organic
compounds in coal and petroleum were thought to
come from different sources, the correspondence of
peaks in the C27 to C32 region was unexpected."
Guy Ourisson, Pierre Albrecht, and Michel
Rohmer,
1984, "The microbial origin of fossil fuels," Scientific
American 251 (2): 44-51.

10. K.R. Pedersen and J. Lam, 1970,
"Precambrian organic compounds from the
Ketilidian of south-west Greenland," Gronlands
Geologiske Unders. Bull., No. 82.

11. G. Henderson, 1964, "Oil and gas prospects
in the Cretaceous-Tertiary basin of west Greenland,"
Geol. Survey Greenland Rept., No. 22.

12. C.H. Hitchcock, 1865, "The Albert Coal, or
Albertite, of New Brunswick," Amer. J. Sci, 2nd Ser.
39: 267-73.

13. These and many more examples of anomalies
in coal deposits are discussed in Chapter 9 of my
1987 book, Power from the Earth (London: J.M.
Dent).

14. H.R. Wanless, 1952, "Studies of field relations
of coal beds," in Second Conference on the Origin
and Constitution of Coal, Nova Scotia Department of
Mines, pp. 148-80.
CHAPTER 6

1. My presentation was published in Sweden in
Svenska Dagbladet (October 17, 1983) under the
title "Deep natural gas in Sweden?" (file no. 235)

2. I published a more detailed account of the
Siljan results in the January 14, 1991 issue of Oil
and Gas Journal, pp. 76-78. See also my 1988 "The
d e e p earth gas theory with respect to the results
from the Gravberg-1 well," in A. Boden and K.G.
Eriksson, Deep Drilling in Crystalline Bedrock (New
York: Springer-Verlag) pp. 18-27.

3. I wrote a summary of the findings on the
magnetite sludge in 1991, "Accumulations of fine-
grained magnetite in a deep borehole in Sweden,"
unpublished. (file no. 275)

4. The two laboratory analyses were performed by
J.M. Knudsen et al. at Orsted Laboratory at the
University of Copenhagen and by R. Reynolds et al.
at the USGS in Denver. Both are contained in my file
no. 652.

5. An account of a third laboratory analysis,
including neutron activation analysis, performed by
C. Orth at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was
communicated to me in a private report; file no. 652.

6. A summary of the Philp findings are contained
in my green file no. 652.

7. U. Szewzyk et al., 1994, "Thermophilic,
anaerobic bacteria isolated from a deep borehole in
granite in Sweden," Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (USA) 91: 1810-13.

8. During the time of Siljan drilling, announcement
was made of the biological production of ultrafine-
grain magnetite by anaerobic microbes in Derek R.
Lovley, John F. Stolz, Gordon L. Nord, and
Elizabeth J.P. Phillips, 1987, "Anaerobic
production of magnetite by a dissimilatory
iron-reducing microorganism," Nature 330: 252-
54. See also N.H.C. Sparks et al., 1990,
"Structure and morphology of magnetite
anaerobically produced by a marine
magnetotactic bacterium and a dissimilatory
iron-reducing bacterium," Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 98: 14-22.

9. W.E. Henry, 1989, "Magnetic detection of
hydrocarbon microseepage in a frontier exploration
region," Bulletin of the Association of Petroleum
Geochemical Explorationists 5: 18-29.
10. P.N. Kropotkin, 1997, "On the history of
science: Professor N.A. Koudryavtsev (1893-1971)
and the development of the theory of origin of oil and
gas," Earth Sciences History 16(1):17-20.
CHAPTER 7

1. D.G. Pearson, G.R. Davies, P.H. Nixon, and
H.J. Milledge, 1998, "Graphitized diamond from a
peridotite massif in Morocco and implications for
anomalous diamond occurrences," Nature 338: 60-
62.

2. C.E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1974, "The
composition and significance of gas released
from natural diamonds from Africa and Brazil,"
American Mineralogist 59: 775-82.

3. Pierre Cartigny, Jeffrey W. Harris, and Marc
Javoy, 1998, "Eclogitic diamond formation at
Jwaneng: No room for a recycled component."
Science 280: 1421-23.

4. Konrad B. Krauskopf, 1982, Introduction to
Geochemistry (London: McGraw-Hill) p.
395.

5. P.N. Kropotkin, 1997, "On the history of
science: Professor N.A. Koudryavtsev and the
development of the theory of the origin of oil and
gas," Earth Sciences History 16: 13-20.

6. An important example of a scientific paper that
reports an association between gold and
hydrocarbons (and yet assumes a hydrothermal
cause for the metal deposit) is A.C. Barnicoat et al.,
1997, "Hydrothermal gold mineralization in the
Witwatersrand Basin," Nature 386: 820-24.

7. Tables of biomineralization can be found in
Barry S.C. Leadbeater and Robert Riding, eds.,
1986, Biomineralization in Lower Plants and
Animals (Oxford, England: Clarendon) p. 4; and also
in Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, 1995, What Is
Life? (New York: Simon & Schuster).
CHAPTER 8

1. Mud volcanoes are discussed in numerous
Russian publications. In the English-language
scientific literature an interesting, illustrated article is
Ma rti n Hovland, Andrew Hill, and David Stokes,
1997, "The structure and geomorphology of the
Dashgill mud volcano, Azerbaijan," Geomorphology
21:1-15. Mud volcanoes are also discussed in my
1987 book, Power from the Earth.

2. The most comprehensive account of
pockmarks and other ocean floor features that I
interpret as caused by the release of gases, mostly
methane, is contained in M. Hoveland and A.G.
Judd, 1988, Seabed Pockmarks and Seepages:
Impact on Geology, Biology, and the Marine
Environment (London: Graham and Trotman). The
largest known pockmark field and the implications of
its methane release are discussed in S. Lammers,
E. Suess, and M. Hovland, 1995, "A large
methane plume east of Bear Island (Barents
Sea): Impli cations for the marine cycle," Geol.
Rundsch
84:59-66.

3. Martin Hovland et al., 1994, "Fault-associated
seabed mounds (carbonate knolls?) off western
Ireland and northwest Australia," Marine and
Petroleum Geology 11(2):232-46.

4. I thank Steven Soter for alerting me to the
temporal correlation between the decline in the gas
theory of earthquakes and the invention of
seismographs.

5. Over the course of many years, Steven Soter
has researched earthquake data and has
collaborated in papers and articles on deep gas as
a cause of earth quakes. These writings include
Thomas Gold and Steven Soter, 1980, "The deep-
earth gas hypothesis," Scientific American 242:
154-61; and Thomas Gold and Steven Soter,
1984/85, "Fluid ascent through the solid lithosphere
and its relations to earthquakes," Pageoph 122:
492-530. See also the chapter on earthquakes in my
1987 book, Power from the Earth (London: J.M.
Dent).

6. Isaac Newton, 1730, Optics, 4th ed., q. 31, pp.
354-55.

7. John Michell, 1761, "Conjectures concerning
the cause, and observations upon the phenomena,
of earthquakes," Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society 51: 566-634.

8. Liao-ling Meteorological Station, 1977, "The
extraordinary phenomena in weather observed
before the February 1975 Hai-cheng earthquake,"
Acta Geophys. Sinica 20: 270-75.

9. Yuji Sano and Hiroshi Wakita, 1987, "Helium
isotope evidence for magmatic gases in Lake Nyos,
Cameroon," Geophysical Research Letters 14:
1039-41.

10. Unfortunately, I have only an incomplete
citation for the Tangshan earthquake and could not
retrieve the full citation. The quotation was drawn
from a report by J. Li, titled "Earthquake: A harvest
of agony," which appeared in an October 1980 issue
of the Los Angeles Times.

11. I understand that earth mounds are present in
other regions of North America, too. Interpretations
tend to identify the cause of their formation as
mysterious, though perhaps attributable to
earthworks deliberately constructed by paleo
Indians.

12. For a review of strain mechanisms
hypothesized for earthquakes and the problems of
using such mechanisms to explain deep
earthquakes, see Harry W. Green II and Heidi
Houston, 1995, "The mechanics of deep
earthquakes," Annual Reviews of Earth and
Planetary Sciences 23: 169-213. The authors
share
my view that pressurized fluids in pore spaces can
account for earthquakes at depths in which strain
cannot play a role, but they posit water rather than
hydrocarbons as the permeating fluid. As explained
in Chapter 3, I also disagree with the authors'
contention that "it is extremely unlikely that a
fluidfilled porosity ... could be maintained to great
depth."
CHAPTER 9

1. Infrared phototaxis (direction finding by
radiation) at hot ocean vents is suggested as a
precursor to photosynthesis in Euan G. Nisbet,
1995, "Archaean ecology: A review of evidence for
the early development of bacterial biomes, and
speculations on the development of a global-scale
biosphere," in M.P. Coward and A.C. Ries, eds.,
Early Precambrian Processes, Geological Society
of London Special Publication No. 95, pp. 27-51.
See also E.G. Nisbet and C.M.R. Fowler, 1996,
"Some liked it hot," Nature 382: 404-5.

2. The calculation assumes that each monkey is
given just one chance to push, at random, the
requisite number of keys (39) corresponding to the
first line in a Shakespeare sonnet.

3. Robert V. Miller, 1998, "Bacterial gene
swapping in nature," Scientific American, January,
pp. 67-71.

4. Vilmos Csanyi proposed that symbiotic
mergers of communities of microorganisms might
best account for fundamental differences in cell
types of the animal body in his 1989 Evolutionary
Systems and Society (Durham, NC: Duke University
Press).

5. Linus Pauling, 1959, General Chemistry, 2nd
ed. (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman), p. 599.

6. Support for the gene-swapping view of early life
is reported in Elizabeth Pernise, 1998, "Genome
data shake tree of life," Science 280: 672-74.
CHAPTER 10

1. Jon S. Nelson and E.C. Simmons, 1995,
"Diffusion of methane and ethane through the
reservoir cap rock: Implications for the timing and
durati on of catagenesis," American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, July 1995,
79(7):11064-74.

2. David M. Karl, 1995, "Ecology of free-living,
hydrothermal vent microbial communities," in David
M. Karl, ed., The Microbiology of Deep-Sea
Hydrothermal Vents (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press),
p. 109.

3. For a review of the publications that have
reported methanotrophs in the deep-ocean vent
communities and as symbionts of the macrofauna,
s e e Daniel L. Distel, 1998, "Evolution of
chemoautotrophic endosymbiosis in bivalves,"
BioScience 48(4): 277-86.

4. John Postgate, 1994, The Outer Reaches of
Life (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press), p. 29.

5. Climate model calculations for Venus are
reported in James F. Kasting, 1988, "Runaway and
moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of
Earth and Venus," Icarus 74: 472-94. See also his
1997 "Habitable zones around low mass stars and
the search for extraterrestrial life," Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere 27: 291-307.

6. The time for onset of a runaway greenhouse on
the earth has been estimated by James Lovelock
and Michael Whitfield in their 1982 "Life span of the
biosphere," Nature 296: 561-63. A more recent
estimate is given in Ken Caldeira and James F.
Kasting, 1992, "The lifespan of the biosphere
revisited," Nature 360: 721-23.
7. Baerbel K. Lucchitta, Duwayne M. Anderson,
and Hitoshi Shoji presented a strong case for Mars
glaciation in their 1981 "Did ice streams carve
Martian outflow channels?" Nature 290: 759-63. See
also Hugh H. Kieffer et al., eds, Mars (Tucson:
University of Arizona Press) pp. 498-51. The glacial
theory is applied to the most recent Mars photos in
Jeffrey Winters, 1998, "A survey of ancient Mars,"
Discover, July, pp. 113-17.

8. The gigantic magnitude of Olympus Mons on
Mars creates a difficulty in accounting for it as a lava
volcano. Because lava is nearly the same density as
the solid rock, it is difficult to imagine how an
adequate pressure could be available to push lava
to the height of the landform in its later stages.
Possibly it should be thought of as a giant pingo or a
giant mud volcano.

9. D.S. McKay et al., 1996, "Search for Past Life
on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian
Meteorite," ALH 84001. Science 273(5277):1
924-
30, 16 August 1996

10. Thomas Gold, 1992, "The deep, hot
biosphere," Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA 89: 6045-49.




he assistance I received from Connie
Barlow in writing about this diverse and multifaceted
subject is greatly appreciated. Her suggestions
were responsible for ordering my views and ideas
i nt o sequences that could be understood
more readily, and she added several
significant
explanations and found essential references in my
extensive files.

I am greatly indebted to Mr. William Frucht, past
editor of Copernicus, who developed great interest
in the subject of massive subsurface life and the
numerous consequences this would have in various
branches of the earth sciences. He persuaded me to
write the present book.

Luckily the present chief editor of Copernicus, Mr.
Jonathan Cobb, took an equally strong interest in the
subject, and his editorial pen had a major impact on
the brevity and clarity of the explanations. I would
also like to thank Connie Day for her many fine
copyediting suggestions.

Ralph E. Gomory, the president of the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation, was also enthusiastic about the
subject, as was Dr. Jesse Ausubel, a member of the
staff, and I greatly appreciate that numerous
expenses incurred with the collection of the evidence
were covered by that foundation.

I discovered some time ago that I was not the
originator of the theory of a deep origin of petroleum;
Russian or ex-Soviet Union scientists had
concerned themselves for more than a century with
these subjects and had obtained truly vast amounts
of information in support of them. In particular, Peter
Kropotkin (now deceased), a distinguished
geologi st in the Geological Institute of the U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences, was my main source of
information. I was gratified to have been asked by
the U.S.S.R. Academy to contribute a chapter to a
book in memory of Mendeleyev, who was one of the
first to point to such a theory.

The past assistance of my friend and colleague
Dr. Steven Soter constituted major contributions in
many areas, especially in relation to earthquakes, on
which he had collected eyewitness accounts over
centuries from many lands and, by showing me the
breadth of viewpoints, greatly encouraged me to
think the problems out afresh and find the
inadequacies of many commonly held explanations.

In considering the presence of huge amounts of
subsurface microbiology, necessary to account for
biological molecules in all petroleum, I was
influenced by the remarkable work of Professor
Ourisson and his collaborators in Strasbourg,
France, who had demonstrated that very large
amounts of bacterial debris existed in the rocks
together with oil and gas, although they placed a
different explanation on these finds.

I also wish to thank my wife for the great patience
she showed when I secluded myself in my study for
days on end, and when my time-table sometimes
interfered with the orderly conduct of the household.
Iiidex