﻿STRUCTURE 
  AND 
  CONDITIONS 
  AFFECTING 
  PRESENCE 
  OF 
  OIL. 
  71 
  

  

  of 
  wind-blown 
  sand 
  were 
  formed 
  also, 
  and 
  their 
  formation 
  is 
  con- 
  

   tinuing 
  at 
  present. 
  During 
  the 
  late 
  Quaternary 
  the 
  deposits 
  and 
  

   topographic 
  forms 
  resulting 
  from 
  all 
  these 
  processes 
  have 
  been 
  carved 
  

   by 
  erosion; 
  wide 
  areas 
  have 
  been 
  denuded 
  of 
  the 
  thin 
  Pleistocene 
  

   capping; 
  and 
  in 
  many 
  places 
  bits 
  of 
  terrace 
  deposits 
  are 
  left 
  merely 
  

   as 
  scattering 
  remnants. 
  

  

  STRUCTURE 
  AND 
  CONDITIONS 
  AFFECTING 
  THE 
  PRES- 
  

   ENCE 
  OF 
  OIL. 
  

  

  THE 
  ANTICLINAL 
  THEORY. 
  

  

  The 
  anticlinal 
  theory 
  of 
  oil 
  accumulation 
  assumes 
  that 
  the 
  oil, 
  

   being 
  of 
  lesser 
  gravity, 
  rises 
  above 
  the 
  water 
  present 
  in 
  porous 
  

   rocks 
  and 
  collects 
  at 
  the 
  highest 
  possible 
  points 
  in 
  upward 
  folds, 
  

   being 
  there 
  confined 
  by 
  impervious 
  strata 
  arching 
  over 
  the 
  folds. 
  

   The 
  presence 
  of 
  water, 
  according 
  to 
  this 
  theory, 
  is 
  considered 
  as 
  

   fundamentally 
  necessary 
  for 
  the 
  carrying 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  process 
  of 
  

   accumulation 
  in 
  anticlines. 
  

  

  The 
  presence 
  of 
  oil 
  in 
  anticlinal 
  folds 
  was 
  repeatedly 
  observed 
  in 
  

   the 
  eastern 
  part 
  of 
  North 
  America 
  during 
  the 
  latter 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  

   nineteenth 
  century. 
  E. 
  B. 
  Andrews 
  noted 
  its 
  occurrence 
  along 
  low 
  

   anticlines 
  in 
  West 
  Virginia 
  and 
  Ohio 
  as 
  early 
  as 
  1861, 
  and 
  described 
  

   this 
  occurrence 
  that 
  same 
  year, 
  a 
  and 
  again, 
  with 
  more 
  assurance 
  of 
  

   its 
  wide 
  application, 
  in 
  1866. 
  6 
  

  

  In 
  1863 
  the 
  Canadian 
  geologists, 
  in 
  describing 
  the 
  oil 
  springs 
  

   immediately 
  north 
  of 
  Lake 
  Erie, 
  noted 
  their 
  close 
  relation 
  to 
  the 
  

   anticlinal 
  structure, 
  and 
  formulated 
  the 
  theory 
  that 
  the 
  rise 
  of 
  the 
  

   oil 
  is 
  due 
  to 
  the 
  presence 
  of 
  water 
  in 
  the 
  rocks. 
  Their 
  brief 
  state- 
  

   ment 
  is 
  as 
  follows: 
  

  

  Some 
  of 
  these 
  springs 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  on 
  the 
  line 
  of 
  the 
  great 
  anticlinal 
  which 
  runs 
  

   through 
  the 
  western 
  peninsula, 
  and 
  subordinate 
  undulations 
  of 
  a 
  similar 
  character 
  

   will 
  be 
  found 
  connected 
  with 
  others. 
  The 
  oil, 
  being 
  lighter 
  than 
  water 
  and 
  per- 
  

   meating 
  with 
  it 
  the 
  strata, 
  naturally 
  runs 
  to 
  the 
  highest 
  part, 
  which 
  is 
  the 
  crown 
  of 
  

   the 
  anticlinal, 
  whence 
  it 
  escapes 
  to 
  the 
  surface 
  by 
  some 
  of 
  those 
  breaks 
  which 
  are 
  

   usually 
  found 
  in 
  such 
  positions. 
  

  

  Also 
  in 
  1863 
  Sterry 
  Hunt, 
  to 
  whom 
  the 
  above-cited 
  conclusions 
  in 
  

   the 
  Canadian 
  report 
  are 
  probably 
  due, 
  described 
  the 
  oil 
  of 
  western 
  

   Ontario 
  as 
  derived 
  from 
  low 
  anticlines/ 
  

  

  The 
  following 
  quotation 
  is 
  from 
  an 
  account 
  written 
  in 
  1885 
  by 
  

   I. 
  C. 
  White 
  6 
  of 
  his 
  search 
  for 
  some 
  method 
  of 
  determining 
  the 
  loca- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  gas 
  accumulations 
  : 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  prosecution 
  of 
  this 
  work 
  I 
  was 
  aided 
  by 
  a 
  suggestion 
  from 
  Mr. 
  William 
  A. 
  

   Earsenian, 
  of 
  Allegheny, 
  Pa., 
  an 
  oil 
  operator 
  of 
  many 
  years' 
  experience, 
  who 
  had 
  

  

  a 
  Am. 
  Jour. 
  Sci., 
  2d 
  ser., 
  vol. 
  32, 
  July, 
  1861, 
  pp. 
  85-93. 
  

   & 
  Am. 
  Jour. 
  Sci., 
  2d 
  ser., 
  vol. 
  42, 
  July 
  1866, 
  pp. 
  33-37. 
  

   c 
  Geology 
  of 
  Canada, 
  Canadian 
  Geol. 
  Survey, 
  1863, 
  p. 
  379. 
  

   d 
  Am. 
  Jour. 
  Sci., 
  2d 
  ser., 
  vol. 
  35, 
  March, 
  1863, 
  pp. 
  169-170. 
  

   e 
  Science, 
  vol. 
  5, 
  No. 
  125, 
  June 
  26, 
  1885. 
  

  

  