The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-04-30

Sun busy manufacturing new stores for
coming generations.
OF late, the chemist has endeavored to
AID the geologist in the solution of this
highly interesting and important question
ana as result many new facts have
been brought out regarding petroleum
and its allied products. These newer facts
have in reality reopened the whole mat
ter, which for a time was supposed 10 be
satisfactorily explained and settled It
might. therefore. be of interest 20 take
a short review of the present status of
the question.
The first hypothesis advanced to ac-
count for the origin of petroleum Is SINH
lar TO the explanation proposed for the
formation of coal. According to this
view. the remains of the exceedingly lux
uriant Vegec~ton of the DeVonian period
of our earth's history were buried under
the accommodations OF sand and debris.
They were then subjected to a process of
decomposition, which Is partly a ferment-
alton, partly a decay and chiefly a slow
destructive distillation, the heat for this
latter process being derived from the in
terror of the earth or hy the decomposi-
ton itself The vegetable fibre is COM
posed chiefly Of the elements carbon, n.y.
drogen and oxygen, ana by the above
processes these elements are caused to
enter into new combinations, the oxygen
compound being mostly eliminated. and
the hydrogen and carbon combining most
" to form the so-called hydrocarbons.
In this way, all the different varieties of
coal, of petroleum and of natural gas.
WHICH dit AliAluT6H OF the nNuIO~tdID
We're supposed to have been produced.
This theory, of course, would tend TO
consider the production of oil and gas as
being completed, and does not hold out
the hope that they are being formed al
present. II was on the whole so plaus-
ible and satisfactory that until 1876 no
other was advanced. In fact, II is the
only one known TO the general public
and is usually the only one mentioned ia
the textbooks.
However. in the year above mentioned,
RNngCnn a nd fall
chemist, Mendelejeff, proposed to account
for the production of petroleum by a more
purely chemical theory. Basing their
views upon the teachings of geology and
astronomy, they assumed that at con-
siderable depth from the earth's surface
the heavy metals have accumulated In
large quantities. As they readily combine
with carbon, 1t is probable that they exist
there as incandescent metallic carbides,
or, in other words, as compounds of these
metals with carbon. IL has, moreover,
long been well known that water is readily
decomposed by metallic carbides at high
temperatures into It's elements, hydrogen
and oxygen, and that its hydrogen under
these circumstances combines with the
carbon of the carbides to produce hydro
carbons. Mendelejeff In this manner ac-
counts for the origin of petroleum by the
action of water through openings in the
earth's crust, upon the molten metallic
carbides in the interior.
This hypothesis, which is certainly a
very ingenious one. holds out the hope
continuously produced, as undoubtedly
the masses of metallic carbides are not
nearly exhausted. II is rendered some
what probable by the observation made
by SilvestFi of the occurrence of petro-
leum in certain leaves Of Aetna. But IL
cannot stand the test of chemical exami-
nation. II is also very doubtful whether
water could ever reach the molten met
ais, as II would probably be converted
into steam and driven back by the heat
Of the intervening layers long before 1t
could apNF.1 arafh
The next theory advanced was that of
the purely animal origin of petroleum. In
1877 Prof. Hoefer concluded from observed
geological conditions of its occurrence
that petroleum was produced from the aC-
cumulated remains of marine animals,
while coal was still conceded to have orig
mated from vegetable debris. This would
also explain the often observed fact that
petroleum is generally found. not in the
rocks where coal Is common, but on the
contrary, in such rocks of marine forma-
ton in which coal is absent. great
deal has been said and written for and
against this explanation. but 1t is rapidly
gaining ground and has obtained wide ac-
ceptanee. especially in Europe. The chief
argument against II was al first the
fact that nitrogen was nevre found in pc
troleum while animal matter is always
rich in this element. But this objection is
easily overcome by he fact that the nitro
gen of the animal tissue tends to be elm
mated as ammonia. An artificial petro-
leum, free from nitrogen, has been pro-
duced from animal fats. Later investiga-
lions have. moreover, proved that many
of the petroleums do contain nitrogen and
also that petroleum is at present act
ually being formed on a small scale in
the Red Sea from the bodies of animal or
ganisms. These and many other facts
render the chemical evidence in favor of
the animal origin of petroleum fairly COM
plete. Unfortunately this theory like the
first one does not hold out the hope of a
continuous supply or, at most, on a scale
too small to be of commercial Importance
The above are the three chief hypoth
eses advanced for the origin of petroleum.
many Others have been proposed from
time to time, but they have found but lit
tie acceptance for while they may at
first sight have seemed plausible they
ination.