By Andy May
While researching fossil fuel history recently, I discovered a PBS article entitled “The Whale Oil Myth.” You can see the full article here. It is based on another blog post on the environmental history web site here. The authors are not identified, but the original ideas are from Dr. Bill Kovarik from the School of Communication at Radford University and the late Dr. Lester Lave, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University.
Both articles claim that petroleum-based kerosene, distilled with the Gesner refining process did not help save the whales from being fished into extinction. They claim that distinguished economists James Robbins (see his “How Capitalism Saved the Whales“) and Dr. Lester Lave (Dr. Lave has comments after both blog posts that are worth reading) are just plain wrong and whales would have done fine, even if kerosene had not replaced whale oil as the lamp fuel of choice. For a more academic, peer-reviewed discussion of how petroleum-based products were a significant factor in reducing the demand for whale oil see (McCollough and Check 2010) here. The posts further claim that whale oil was not replaced by kerosene through honest competition in the marketplace, but through government intervention that provided a fossil fuel subsidy by way of taxes. They seem to think camphine (the alternative spelling, “camphene” is a chemical) lamp fuel would have won the competition with kerosene, except for the unfair taxation of ethanol.
Seeing this claim was strange, after all as long ago as September 3, 1860, this appeared in the California Fireside Journal:
“Had it not been for the discovery of Coal Oil [an early primitive kerosene], the race of whales would soon have become extinct. It is estimated that ten years would have used up the whole family.”
So, let’s examine these unusual “Whale Oil Myth” claims that now seem to be all over the internet. The Whale Oil Myth, according to the PBS and environmental history posts is summarized as follows, from here:
“According to an IRS report and testimony to a House committee, alcohol production for the burning fluid market alone stood around 90 million gallons per year at its height in 1860. Whale oil peaked at 18 million gallons in 1845, according to Starbuck’s whaling history of 1878.
So, in 1860, there was 5 times more alcohol [camphine] fuel on the market than whale oil, and there was no kerosene from petroleum. [Drake’s first well had just been dug.]
Use of kerosene rose quickly after 1862 when, a tax of $2.00 per gallon was imposed on alcohol to pay for the Civil War. The tax quickly forced burning fluid and camphine off the market. Attempts to exempt industrial alcohol from what was meant to be a beverage alcohol tax were not successful at the time. A far smaller tax (10 cents per gallon) was imposed on kerosene.”
Most of this is reasonable. The author provides no source for his 90 million gallons of U.S. alcohol production for burning fluid and I was not able to confirm the number on my own, but we will accept the value for the sake of argument. His value of 18 million gallons of U.S. whale oil might be a little high, if we include sperm oil and whale oil, it might have been as low as 13 million gallons. In any case whale oil and sperm oil production were declining by 1860. The human population was increasing, so the demand for lamp fuel was rising as well. Whale oil was the best fuel at the time, but getting more expensive, so alternatives were brought to market.
After this, they lose me. Alcohol is a very poor lamp fuel on its own, the light is blue, faint and very poor. Turpentine burns with a bright flame but has a strong unpleasant odor. Isaiah Jennings invented “burning fluid” in 1830, it was a mix of alcohol, camphor and turpentine. In 1835 a similar mixture was patented by Henry Porter, this was called “Porter’s Patent Composition Burning Fluid” and was very popular. Often, the mixture is incorrectly called “camphene.” Camphene is a chemical (C10H16), the lamp fuel is properly spelled “camphine.” To make camphine lamp fuel, one recipe calls for three parts ethanol to be mixed with one-part refined turpentine, this is mainly to reduce the turpentine odor. Other recipes left out the alcohol, which is very volatile and explosive, and only added camphor to improve the odor. Still others used pure turpentine, although these were meant for outdoor use. The part of camphine that produces the bright white light is the turpentine.
Turpentine was very valuable as a medicine in the 19th century, although it isn’t used for medicinal purposes much today. It is one of the few chemicals that can be used as a solvent to produce rubber, the others are from petroleum which was not available in large quantities until the 1860s. Turpentine is also used in paint and varnish (see here) and as a solvent. All these products were needed desperately for the Civil War. Turpentine prices exploded in the 1860s due to the war and many farmers stopped working their crops and put in turpentine boxes if they had a lot of pine trees. The resin, used in ship building was also very valuable. It is likely that the two-dollar tax on ethanol had some effect on the price of camphine, but the higher wartime prices for turpentine were probably more important.
Dr. Kovarik’s conclusion was that the alcohol tax killed camphine as a lamp fuel and that the story that kerosene saved the whales was “irresponsible and historically fake.” Then, because the ethanol tax during the Civil War was two dollars and the tax on kerosene was only 10 cents, he concluded that kerosene was unfairly subsidized. This is disingenuous in the extreme, alcohol is a poor lamp fuel, it does not compete with kerosene. Turpentine is the lamp fuel and it was not taxed, it was just in demand for other purposes. The decline in whale oil production was not because of camphine or alcohol, it was because whales were harder to find, a view shared by Dr. Lester Lave.
The price for whale oil had risen to such a level (two dollars a gallon) that most people simply couldn’t afford it. Yet, even at that price, in 1858, 64 percent of American whaling ships lost money according to Dr. James Robbins here. This was the peak year for whaling ships. Demand was through the roof, but not at any price. This is explained by (McCollough and Check 2010) in this way:
As Clark (p. 951[, (Clark 1973)]) points out, “It has been noted, that harvesting costs rise with decreasing population levels, a rent-maximizing policy will automatically lead to biological conservation, with an equilibrium population in excess of the population corresponding to maximum sustained yield”. With respect to whaling in the 1800s, Bardi (p. 302[, (Bardi 2007)) notes that “Evidently, the reduction in whale populations were sufficient to make whaling progressively more expensive and difficult, given the technology of whaling at that time.” From McCollough and Check, Sustainability, 2010.
The New York Times agrees that the scarcity of whales was the reason for the decline in the industry, this is from an article in August 3, 2008:
But, in fact, whaling was already just about done, said Eric Jay Dolin, who wrote some of the text for the exhibit and is the author of “Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America.” Whales near North America were becoming scarce, and the birth of the American petroleum industry in 1859 in Titusville, Pa., allowed kerosene to supplant whale oil before the electric light replaced both of them and oil found other uses. New York Times, 2008.
There were fewer whales killed and whale oil prices very were getting ever higher, so alternatives crowded the market. But, all of them had problems, except for high-quality kerosene which produced a higher quality light than whale oil, had no soot or odor, didn’t spoil and could be stored indefinitely. Whale oil had several problems. It was becoming very expensive as demand dramatically increased in the 1850s, it had a short shelf life, and whales were becoming harder and more expensive to find.
Fish oil was burned in betty lamps, it was cheaper but had a very bad odor and spoiled rapidly. Camphine (also called “burning fluid” or “Porter’s fluid”) was mentioned above, it is made with any one of a number of recipes that included refined turpentine, and either or both camphor and ethanol. It produced a good light, comparable to whale oil, but was very explosive, quite volatile at room temperature and had a low viscosity. Camphine was relatively cheap prior to the Civil War, but the war increased turpentine prices and camphine was driven from the market by cost and the dangers of using it (Ghosh 2001). Figure 1 shows an ad from an 1855 light shop.

Other fuels widely tried by the public were colza (Canola) vegetable oil, natural gas and ethanol by itself. Lard, especially from pigs, was also commonly used as lamp fuel after refining. All these fuels produced poor light and/or bad odors, except for natural gas. The light from an ethanol lamp is very faint and useless for reading. Natural gas needed pipelines, which were expensive and only available in cities. Camphine was unfortunately explosive and very dangerous, this was constantly reported by whaling merchants since this fuel was their only real competition. Horrifying stories of women and children dying due to camphine (with or without alcohol) lamp fires were reported all the time. Two examples are given below, the first is a New York Times article from August 21, 1854:

Our second example is from Scientific American, volume 8, issue 25, March 5, 1853:

Kerosene
Kerosene is a name invented by Abraham Gesner who developed the modern method of refining a very high-quality kerosene product. While the Scottish chemist James Young also invented a process for making kerosene, his process produced an inferior product and did not survive. Gesner patented his process in 1854 and opened a refinery in New York in 1854 called the North American Kerosene Gas Light Company and sold kerosene produced from coal. Later, after oil well drilling became common, due to Drake’s discovery in Pennsylvania in 1859, Standard Oil purchased the refinery and patent rights from Gesner and produced very high-quality kerosene lamp fuel from liquid petroleum. This “standard” product was much easier and cheaper than making kerosene from coal and the price of kerosene plummeted from around 50 cents/gallon to 7 cents per gallon by 1895. Standard Oil’s kerosene was advertised as the safe alternative to camphine and cheap, poor quality “kerosene” and it produced a higher quality light than even the best whale oil. The Perkins and House “Non-Explosive Kerosene Lamp” was touted as a safe alternative to camphine lamps in Scientific American in 1867 here. An early ad for kerosene salesmen also makes this point:

Cheaper brands of kerosene contained gasoline and other volatile, explosive fractions of crude oil and could be as dangerous as camphine. Kerosene from the Gesner process produced a higher quality light than whale oil, soot-free. Further, a lit match thrown into a jar of Gesner’s kerosene would simply be extinguished, it was not volatile or explosive and was much safer than camphine or cheaper grades of kerosene. Kerosene has a flashpoint of 150-185 degrees F., versus 95 degrees F. for turpentine and 55 degrees F. for ethanol. What this means is kerosene will not ignite at normal temperatures, but alcohol, turpentine and camphine will. By the 1860s camphine had also become much more expensive due to the much higher price for turpentine.
Conclusions
A close examination of the data suggests that whaling began its decline in the 1850s because whales had become so hard and expensive to find that whalers could not charge a high enough price to make the business profitable. The peak year for U.S. whaling ships was 1858 when there were 199 working ships. Yet, in this year, a full 64% lost money according to Dr. James Robbins here. Whaling declined rapidly after this disastrous year for the industry.
Due to the higher prices for whale oil, the public was desperately trying to find a safe source of good light. There were many contenders, but the Gesner process for refining quality kerosene clearly won out. It was the highest quality light at the best cost. While early versions of kerosene were sooty, unsafe and volatile, just like camphine, the purer kerosene from the Gesner process, was very safe with a flashpoint of over 150 degrees F. which is unlikely to be reached in a home.
The Civil War alcohol tax may have played a role in the demise of camphine as a lamp fuel, but the historical records suggest the explosions caused by camphine and alcohol lamps played a much larger role. As for cost, records suggest the increasing cost of turpentine was more important than the higher cost for ethanol. In The Springfield Gas Machine: Illuminating Industry and Leisure, 1860s-1920s, by Donald Linebaugh (Linebaugh 2011):
[While camphine] “… produced a flame that was clear, dense, and brilliant … the burning fluid was extremely combustible and thus one of the most dangerous lighting fuels ever used. Accidents involving the fuel caused hundreds of injuries and fatalities. In 1834, the Franklin Institute Journal noted that the late fatal accidents resulting from the use of such ingredients in lamps will, however, probably put a final stop to [their] use. An 1853 report in Scientific American documented over thirty-three fatal explosions caused by burning fluid lamps…”
As for the difference in the Civil War tax for ethanol and kerosene being a fossil fuel subsidy or making any difference in the public’s choice between the two, I don’t see it at all. Camphine and ethanol are far too dangerous to ignite indoors, this is the principle reason they failed as lamp fuels. To call the difference in two arbitrary taxes a subsidy is disingenuous in the extreme as are most claimed U.S. fossil fuel “subsidies.” This is discussed in more detail, for modern so-called fossil fuel subsidies here. True fossil fuel subsidies do exist in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and some other oil producing nations but as noted in the linked post, they don’t exist in the United States, that is a true environmentalist’s myth.
The discovery of liquid petroleum played a huge role in solidifying kerosene as the lamp fuel of choice. It made the production of the fuel much cheaper and the price quickly plummeted to seven cents per gallon. Thus, the fuel was not only the safest lamp fuel, with the best light, no odor, and a long shelf life, it was also the cheapest fuel. None of the alternatives stood a chance until natural gas and electric lighting became commonplace.
Did it save the whales? It certainly helped. The declining population of whales made them hard to find and this decreased the number of whaling ships, but whaling did continue after 1860 and well into the 20th century. The better whalers could still find whales and did kill them, and the low population made them vulnerable to extinction. When quality kerosene became available, it decreased the demand for whales, so it did help. Just as steel hoops replacing whale bone hoops in women’s clothing helped. Calling the idea that “kerosene saved the whales” “irresponsible and historically fake” is an extreme overstatement. Kerosene was not the only reason whales survived, but it did help save them.
Andy May is a writer and a retired petrophysicist. His first book: Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction? Will be available on Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com next week on May 1st.
Works Cited
Bardi, U. 2007. “Energy prices and resource depletion: Lessons from the case of whaling in the nineteenth century.” Energy Sources Part B. https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/handle/2158/776587/23682/Energy%20Prices%20and%20Resource%20Depletion.pdf.
Clark, Colin. 1973. “Profit Maximization and the extinction of animal species.” Journal of Political Economy 81 (4). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/260090.
Ghosh, Deepannita. 2001. “ILLUMINATING THE PAST: ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING IN AMERICA (1610-1930) AND A GUIDE TO LIGHTING HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS.” Master’s thesis, University of Georgia. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ghosh_deepannita_200405_mhp.pdf.
Linebaugh, Donald. 2011. The Springfield Gas Machine: Illuminating Industry and Leisure, 1860s-1920s. University of Tennessee Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=uHVQVJknYnMC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=How+many+deaths+due+to+camphene+lamp+explosions+in+Scientific+American&source=bl&ots=n8MSzHLjoJ&sig=RLCkwP6vDgdD6g3k5eThQul8TIo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_7-jodHaAhUMY6wKHSt0D0wQ6AEINTAD#v=one.
McCollough, John, and Henry Check. 2010. “The Baleen Whales’ Saving Grace: The Introduction of Petroleum Based Products in the Market and Its Impact on the Whaling Industry.” Sustainability 2 (10): 3142-3157. doi:10.3390/su2103142.
An informative read. Thank you.
Ditto
Great article. It reminded me of one of Dr. Crockford’s very early blog posts about the impact of whalers on the polar bear population. Essentially as it became harder to make a profit from whales towards the end of the nineteenth century, polar bear skins became a target commodity for whaling ships – well worth a read:
https://polarbearscience.com/2012/09/20/the-slaughter-of-polar-bears-that-rarely-gets-mentioned-ca-1890-1930/
The gray whale was “fished out” in the Atlantic in the 19th century. They have since then been found only in the general area of the Pacific. Much harder for a whaling ship to find in those waters.
My wife saw a Gray in Penn Cove on her way home the other day.
The whaling ships of Nantucket ranged all over the world to find whales. When the Atlantic was “fished out” they would embark on long Pacific voyages. I spent some time in Nantucket at the estate of the president of one of the major oil companies. The whale barons built some impressive real estate, and it is fitting that the properties stayed in the oil biz.
The “alternative” energy industry is DESPERATE to retain/regain government subsidies. Therefore EVERY story about the “unfair” subsidies for fossil fuel use is necessary. Fossil fuel disinformation is … necessarily increasing
Subsidies for solar, however, are wonderful.
Another event impacting whale oil in the Civil War was the CSS Alabama attacking the US whaling fleet:
http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-973
“The Alabama embarked on its voyage on August 24, taking a whaling ship out of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, as its first prize on September 5. During the next two weeks, Semmes preyed on the American whaling fleet, making prisoners of the crews and burning most of the vessels after relieving them of supplies. Occasionally, he released a ship on bond and required it to give passage to his prisoners. Southern and foreign sailors among his captives frequently augmented the Alabama’s skeleton crew, and Semmes soon had close to the full complement of 150 men.”
Also alluded to in the WUWT post was steel replacing whalebone hoops for hoop skirts. The contemporary substitute for whalebone is the extra large zip tie (made from oil):
https://www.jennylafleur.com/study/boning.htm
Three cheers for the USS Kearsage and damnation to the Deerhound.
Also alluded to in the WUWT post was steel replacing whalebone hoops for hoop skirts. The contemporary substitute for whalebone is the extra large zip tie (made from oil):
Now that is odd and wonderful.
Actually, in regard to a substitute for whale bone for boning costumes, steel boning is the replacement. You can get it at any fabric store that caters to the Renaissance Faire crowd.
fascinating web page by that lass;-) thanks heaps;-)
Recently a German firm has started making “synthetic whalebone” (Google that for links) from plastic. It was reviewed enthusiastically by an Italian historical costumer in an article, “Why Plastic Is Better than Steel,” here: https://www.foundationsrevealed.com/index-of-articles/corsetry/fabricsmaterials/557-why-plastic-is-better-than-steel
A couple of U.S. (I assume) corsetieres employ it on request:
Laurie Tavan: https://www.dazeoflaur.com/
RedThreaded: https://redthreaded.com/
I do know anything about kerosene made by the Gesner process, but today, commercially produced kerosene, petroleum distillate, has a flash specification between 100 and 150 F.
It depends upon the purity of the kerosene, very pure kerosene is over 150. From a lamp standpoint it is well above room temperature, whereas alcohol is about 55 degrees, thus extremely dangerous.
Andy, there is no such thing as purity when it comes to kerosene. It is a petroleum distillate which boils in the range of 300 to 500 F. It’s flash is predominantly determined by the front end of the distillation curve. The flash can be controlled in manufacturing over wide range, and are usually in accordance with ASTM specifications. It is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons, so purity really has no meaning for kerosene in the usual sense of the word. Those of us in the petroleum refining business do not use that term.
Thomas Graney, thanks. I knew that, but could not think of a better way to explain the difference between the crude forms of kerosene pre-Gesner process and the Gesner kerosene. His method separated the volatiles from the product better than any other process at the time and in a scalable way. That was the key to a safe fuel. It is true that kerosene is a mixture, but it is pure in the sense the volatiles are removed from it.
So current lamp oil is basically the same kerosene product? I keep that on hand as well as two old oil lamps my grandmother left behind, for emergencies. The oil burned gives off a very bright, clear light, bright enough to read and study by, with no smell at all.
That 150 they’re refering to is celsius I think. Which makes me feel better about that can of turpentine on the shelf out back I must say.
The flashpoint is different from the boiling point. The flash point of turpentine, when it is in danger of igniting is 30C. The flashpoint of ethanol is about 17C, so you can see the problem. Kerosene is 40C + or-
According to SDS’s, the flash point of pure kerosene is 100F
http://www.andeavor.com/media/1094/kerosene.pdf
The minimum flashpoint is 100 deg F, that is why that is listed on the SDS. Normally it is higher than that. Gasoline, by contrast is -45 deg. F.
Rewriting, pardon, re-interpreting, history has always been a hobby of the left.
Time for the old joke about the Soviet Union, where only the future was certain, but where the past kept changing.
Whale oil production (the killing rate) declined as they were hunted to extinction: First off of the east coast, then north Atlantic and the Atlantic Arctic side, the central Atlantic, around the Horn to the Chilean, central eastern Pacific , Hawaiian waters, then north Pacific, Pacific Arctic and then past the Bering Strait. (All even BEFORE the Civil War!) The Civil war Confederate raiders sunk dozens of the Yankee whalers, and many more (most) were in very bad economic and physical shape by the middle and end of the war. (Leviathon is the best general history book of whaling.) To blockade southern ports, even more dozens of whalers were confiscated and driven to be sunk.
It wasn’t only “lamps” but CANDLES that used whale oil and whale products were needed: The author is focusing on what would prove their theory, not on the whole topic. Even those whaling ships that over-wintered in the Alaskan arctic trying to kill more whales were coming home empty by the 1870-80’s. Taxes had little to do with it: If the petroleum industry had not begun, every whale would have been “boiled out”
One of many environmental rewrites of history..
1. There was no global cooling scare in the 60’s according to people that weren’t there.
2. The temperature in the 30’s were colder than now despite a mountain of evidence that for rural areas temperatures remain unchanged and temperature change is largely a result of urbanization.
3. The little ice age did not exist despite a mountain of evidence that it did, because the hockey stick says so.
4. The Medieval warm period did not exist despite a mountain of evidence that it did, because the hockey stick says so.
5. A temperature rise today will be catastrophic even though temperatures were higher 8000 years ago when humans first developed agriculture.
I have often wondered about HUMAN BODY TEMPERATURE being 37 degrees Celsius ( 98.6 F ) and
whether that WAS THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE of the Earth AT THE TIME that one of our
ancestors evolved ? Most active animals tend to have a similar body temperature to ours .
IF this is the case , then severe Global Warming would be like ” coming home ! ” .
Anybody got any information on this please ?I
What I like about this article is that it high-lights the ingenuity of the free market (aka Capitalism). When one product become too expensive then entrepreneurs will try a variety of cheaper alternatives until one or more prove out. Prices are reduced, performance is enhanced, everyone benefits.
Do you think this “Whale Oil Myth” is perpetuated not only by a prejudice against fossil fuels, but by an anti-capitalist bent that suspects Standard Oil was up to some jiggery-pokery with Government collusion to screw the whale oil industry?
Also the following typo needs fixin’
Unless, of course, Drake was fisting his well without petroleum jelly.
[Done. Thank you. (Peer review works quickly.) .mod]
Yep. I was lucky to read Buckminster Fuller when I was quite young. He pointed out that we do more and more with less and less. We don’t run out of materials because, if a material becomes too expensive, we can substitute with something that is probably better. Because we discovered kerosene and eventually electric light, we didn’t run out of whales. Someone once quipped that the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. Here’s a link to a cute video that demonstrates the principle.
I love the following quote because it involves Al Gore:
Anyway, Buckminster Fuller innoculated me against the bloviations of folks like David Suzuki.
Maybe he was punching whale-oil’s lights out?
I doubt that very much. Do NOT try that at home. Maybe you mean “a lit cigarette” instead?
Nope, I did try it at home, but outside, carefully. It works.
Throwing a lit match into a container of highly flammable liquid is a pretty common party trick– the dangerous version is when someone throws it into a puddle, which increases the chances of enough gas evaporating up that it can catch fire before the match/cigarette is entirely out.
The secondary risk is people using a dark container for the flammable liquid, and having it in the sun……
One of Mythbusters demonstrations was trying to light trails of various liquid fuels, only gasoline is volatile enough to have flammable vapor above the liquid trail. That scene in Die Hard 2 is Hollywood special effects.
The specific problem I was pointing at is the smoldering material being in, but not far enough under to go out.
A lit match can be thrust into a liquid gasoline will be extinguished. I have demonstrated this many times. What burns are the vapors, just above the surface of the liquid. If you don’t dwell long enough in this explosive vapor zone it won’t ignite.
If you attempt this at home several precautions should be taken. DO NOT HAVE ANY SPILLED GASOLINE NEAR YOUR CUP OF FLUID. The vapors may ignite before you even get close to cup. You do not need much gasoline and the less of it around (in case you mess up) the better. Light the match well away from the liquid. Bring the match above the liquid and quickly thrust it into the liquid making sure to go completely below the surface. The lack of oxygen will extinguish the flame.
In many autos and light trucks, the electric fuel pump is open frame and sits totally immersed on the bottom of the gasoline tank. These are safe from spark ignition because combustion cannot occur.
Anyone who barbecues (and lives with their eyebrows intact) knows about flash point. You also have to be aware of the ambient temperature – above 90F, I am very careful, as the lighter fluid will vaporize very quickly. (There is also the surface area from which it can evaporate, of course – much larger than a couple of square inches in a cup.)
As part of our fire training in the Coast Guard, the instructor poured kerosene (JP-5) into a 3-foot wide pan then lit a roadside flare and dunked it into the pan. The flare was extinguished. He then lit another flare and held the flame to the surface for a couple of seconds until it caught.
“Don’t try this with gasoline,” he said.
Good read. I was unaware that wpanyone had tried to assert kerosene did not ‘save the whales’.
Fantastically informative article. Thank you.
Coal oil was preferred (to kerosene) by my rural relatives before power arrived in the 50s. Brighter, less soot, less odor. Perhaps higher combustion temp as they considered it to be less dangerous than kero.
Haven’t seen any for decades, though odorless lamp oil isn’t too bad as a solvent.
Maybe you’re looking for the old metal containers?
I went to double-check my memory– Walmart has it in huge plastic jugs that look like bulk cleaning supplies. It might be in the camping and RV supplies. Can order the quart size for pickup, too.
Or there’s the lamp oil over by the scented oils, incense sticks and melting wax, that’s almost always the very pure kerosene.
“Coal oil” is a colloquial term for what is now more commonly referred to as kerosene. They are both a 10 to 16 carbon alkanes and cycloalkanes (naphthene). Perhaps what you are remembering or the discrepancy in labels refers to the grades of kerosene (1-K or 2-K) which removes primarily sulfur?
Drilling a hole and pumping out oil versus sailing and killing whales. Anyone who has read Moby Dick would know how hard and dangerous whaling was.
I guess the obvious point of this exercise by PBS is to start some momentum to claim that petroleum based energy has never been beneficial to mankind. Next they will produce a study to claim that if we had not hunted unicorns to extinction, we would have been able to heat our homes off of their flatulence.
And 53% of liberals would believe it, while a further 28% of liberals would promote the theory despite disbelief, Michael Mann would claim to be a unicorn hybrid.
Revisionist history is almost as common for zealots as distorted use of language, as was noted in “1984”.
Interesting post. The whole commercial fishing industry has been dealing with this, most of the criticism coming from sports fishing and later environmental groups. With commercial fishing greatly restricted in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, regulations are now falling on the sports fishing industry, some of which is now in a sense commercial. Sports fishing is usually argued to be much more valuable, but economists studying it don’t completely buy that, possibly because it is a (necessary?) luxury like tourism.
Currently the issue is red snapper with arguments between states and the feds. Air-breathers are much more susceptible, and the concept that fisheries are limited by supply/demand factors doesn’t seem to get much discussion. Separating fishing effects from natural variation is still difficult in animals that produce millions of eggs with populations ruled by a number of factors.
There were sperm whales fished in the Gulf of Mexico where sightings have now been increasing. It was mostly around the mouth of the Mississippi River. (Townsend, C. H., 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American Whaleships. Zoologica. Vol. XIX, no. 1). Fascinating study–“Sperm whaling in the Gulf of Mexico and West Indies regions was practised (sic) to a very limited extent during the season from February to May only.”
Of interest is that it does not appear that whale oil is being sold today, apart from the legality of selling it. I have seen crude oil available on eBay, but if someone were to buy a gallon, what would it be used for beyond as a curiosity. It would certainly be a problem to properly (environmentally and legally) dispose of.
The issue of whale oil is important because we do not buy whale oil or crude oil, we buy refined fuel products.
These are made by taking a source of raw hydrocarbons, decomposing them into their constituent elements and then reassembling them into the molecules of the defined fuel product. What counts is the price of the product to the end user.
This is the price that is the basis for the “bid” and determines how substitution is computed. If OPEC demands $100 per barrel of crude oil but some other source of hydrocarbons such as coal can be secured for $80/bbl, then industries would move to the lower cost supply of those hydrocarbons. It is clear that reduced supplies and tax levies certainly doomed whale oil to being replaced by hydrocarbon-based fuels.
Perfect. Thank you
As you sit here and read this, consider yourself trying to read something 150 years ago. Most likely reading fast so as not to use up all of your candle. If only the enviro wacko’s could experience that for a few days, what great appreciation they would have cheap available energy. And like me, would need more than the politicized fuzzy studies of socialist doomsayers, before they cut off a much needed source of energy..
I could see that as an advantage – would we spend so much time on “social media” if we had to read our screens by candlelight?
(Do I need a /sarc here? Probably…)
Excellent article, Andy!
That “subsidized” description for taxes gives away the ultimate source for this deception.
Refined pig lard as a source of lamp fuel? Cruel irony, getting only light and no bacon out of it.
I was at a conference 8 to 10 years ago. The keynote speaker started off reading a letter to the President of the USA. It was all about dependence on foreign energy suppliers and scarcity of resources. It had been written to President Polk, I think, about whale oil. The speaker went on to discuss potential enzyme factories that would convert forestry leavings (stuff that gets piled up and burnt after agriculture) into alcohol.
Whoever fixed my captions, thanks!
That the climate extremists feel the need to rewrite history, doctor data, and hide from debate somehow seems interconnected.
Whale Oil Beef Hooked!
What’s amazing is the NYTimes (back in 1854) reporting something without any apparent cultural-marxist bias to it.
Why? “Das Kapital” was not written till 1864….
“Why? Das Kapital was not written until 1864…”
The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels was first published in 1848. From the The Introduction by Vladimir Pozner of the Bantam Classic edition 1992: “..the Specter of Communism is not a spectre at all, it is an idea, an outlook, and it is as alive today as in 1848, when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.”