First, the person you challenged to dig a well in Pennsylvania and the person who used “sic” to indicate your misspellings are two different people. And, using “sic” to point out misspellings is just a formality to show the reader that the one who is quoting is not responsible for the misspelling. My use of the “as it stands” indicator was more for my benefit than your detriment. But, on the other hand, you could check your work as misspellings also tend to make the reader wary of the substantive ideas those misspelled words are conveying.
And, if I might presume on the priority of the challenge to the first poster, I would gladly take you up on the Titusville project myself, but on two conditions. First, you agree to pay for the costs of the exploration and extraction, and, second, you answer the two questions I put to you.
As to the challenge, given the costs of exploration and extraction, including some very costly labor, likely to be incurred in Pennsylvania, the bureaucracy, the DEP requirements, etc., the likelihood of finding it, getting it out and making a profit is problematic, although there still is some petroleum production in the state. But, as far as Pennsylvania’s crude oil peak goes, from existing seep sites that were exploited (I believe they’ve all been found now), as I’m sure you know, occurred, in the late 19th century with a subsequent rise in production (due to enhanced methods) and then a second smaller peak in the 1930s. Investments in natural gas exploration, on the other hand, continue to yield new finds in the state. But, “Peak Oil” is not the same as “Peak Natural Gas.”
As to your “From the Wilderness” reference, I am familiar with the information available there, in general, and Pfeiffer’s work specifically. As far as I’m concerned, none of it adds a nanogram of proof to the proposition that oil is a biotic production of nature. The information has relevance with respect to Peak Oil, which is a political-economic phenomenon, but is entirely irrelevant to petroleum production as a geological phenomenon. Knowing the creed of this particular choir, one should not be surprised by the kinds of hymns that it is singing.
Your extract of Pfeiffer’s piece also included his use of the remarks of Yuri Shafranik, quoted in the Moscow News on November 9, 2004. This is odd from my point of view in that it indicates how extraction and exploration are economically linked; a slowdown in exploration necessarily implies a slowdown or eventual peaking in production. But, this relationship is driven by political-economic considerations. “Such a large drop in exploratory drilling could indicate that investors see a trend of diminishing returns from further exploration.” In itself, the statement says nothing about the origin of petroleum, nor can anything be implied from it about the origin of petroleum. It simply correlates the relationship between exploration and production costs to profitability.
For that matter, on March 17, 2005, MosNews carried an oil story wherein it states, “Among specific measures that would promote price stabilization on oil markets Shafranik named control over price formation on the part of consuming countries, development of new deposits and making a connection between oil corporations and end consumers.” Thus, for Shafranik, greater production is necessarily tied to the exploration and development of new deposits. It should not be presumed from his remarks that he was endorsing either the biotic or abiotic paradigm. Peak Oil, as a political-economic phenomenon, is raw-material neutral, and it doesn’t matter whether petroleum comes from dead animals and plants or inorganic hydrocarbons migrating from depth.
First, the person you challenged to dig a well in Pennsylvania and the person who used “sic” to indicate your misspellings are two different people. And, using “sic” to point out misspellings is just a formality to show the reader that the one who is quoting is not responsible for the misspelling. My use of the “as it stands” indicator was more for my benefit than your detriment. But, on the other hand, you could check your work as misspellings also tend to make the reader wary of the substantive ideas those misspelled words are conveying.
And, if I might presume on the priority of the challenge to the first poster, I would gladly take you up on the Titusville project myself, but on two conditions. First, you agree to pay for the costs of the exploration and extraction, and, second, you answer the two questions I put to you.
As to the challenge, given the costs of exploration and extraction, including some very costly labor, likely to be incurred in Pennsylvania, the bureaucracy, the DEP requirements, etc., the likelihood of finding it, getting it out and making a profit is problematic, although there still is some petroleum production in the state. But, as far as Pennsylvania’s crude oil peak goes, from existing seep sites that were exploited (I believe they’ve all been found now), as I’m sure you know, occurred, in the late 19th century with a subsequent rise in production (due to enhanced methods) and then a second smaller peak in the 1930s. Investments in natural gas exploration, on the other hand, continue to yield new finds in the state. But, “Peak Oil” is not the same as “Peak Natural Gas.”
As to your “From the Wilderness” reference, I am familiar with the information available there, in general, and Pfeiffer’s work specifically. As far as I’m concerned, none of it adds a nanogram of proof to the proposition that oil is a biotic production of nature. The information has relevance with respect to Peak Oil, which is a political-economic phenomenon, but is entirely irrelevant to petroleum production as a geological phenomenon. Knowing the creed of this particular choir, one should not be surprised by the kinds of hymns that it is singing.
Your extract of Pfeiffer’s piece also included his use of the remarks of Yuri Shafranik, quoted in the Moscow News on November 9, 2004. This is odd from my point of view in that it indicates how extraction and exploration are economically linked; a slowdown in exploration necessarily implies a slowdown or eventual peaking in production. But, this relationship is driven by political-economic considerations. “Such a large drop in exploratory drilling could indicate that investors see a trend of diminishing returns from further exploration.” In itself, the statement says nothing about the origin of petroleum, nor can anything be implied from it about the origin of petroleum. It simply correlates the relationship between exploration and production costs to profitability.
For that matter, on March 17, 2005, MosNews carried an oil story wherein it states, “Among specific measures that would promote price stabilization on oil markets Shafranik named control over price formation on the part of consuming countries, development of new deposits and making a connection between oil corporations and end consumers.” Thus, for Shafranik, greater production is necessarily tied to the exploration and development of new deposits. It should not be presumed from his remarks that he was endorsing either the biotic or abiotic paradigm. Peak Oil, as a political-economic phenomenon, is raw-material neutral, and it doesn’t matter whether petroleum comes from dead animals and plants or inorganic hydrocarbons migrating from depth.