CompuServe Messages

Hi Jeff! Many thanks for your most informative post!! >> As for the organic source of hydrocarbons, I routinely estimate financial recoverables from source rock via remote sensing (using electric, nuclear, and acoustic signal sources) of in situ rock and rock-fluid's physical characteristics. << Would that be the new ACME pocket nuke demo charge? Or do you wait for a holocaust?? <VBG – seriously, how do you use nuclear sensing??> >> … It *has* to make money. Wells currently cost $0.5million to $15+million to drill and complete. On average, only one in eight (1/8) wells are a success. Thus, if there was "nothing to" the idea that organic source rock yeilds oil, or if there was another and better (more correct) explanation for the origins of hydrocarbons, then I would venture to guess that there would be kazillions of bucks thrown at the problem of identifying and understanding that xxx source of hydrocarbons. << This is clearly convincing that it is a "given" in the industry. But are you able to supply any more details on just how they are known, and/or work on the assumption, that it is organic in origin. Did you snag any of the earlier posts on this thread? (They're probably gone by now.) Basically asking for more precise details of how they came to that conclusion and how they rule out some potential confounders. All from an armchair perspective — I am not trying to argue the earth is flat, I'm just trying to see to what level petrol being from organic origins is "proven" by letting the findings and, the theories they generate, speak for themselves. Is any of this making sense. It is of course important in the abstract to say that's the working assumption of everyone in the business. But it doesn't actually fill in the blanks of why. And I'm not sure you can; we may in fact be best served by one of the bug counters, if one were to show up around here. Thanks!! – Mike