Enjoy.

While this research had been dismissed by many (including my Daughter’s petrogeology professor) the work continues.  In a recent article in Science Daily titled “Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find” the argument is once again made.  Reading from the article:

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

Some of this is rather disconcerting.  For those that abhor the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) the thought that we might someday run out of petroleum was at least some small solace. Alas, we apparently now won’t.

One of the more interesting points about their research is that they believe they can now more precisely pinpoint where to find petroleum deposits based not on where they believe dinosaurs and other prehistoric life existed but rather based on the geologic fissures.  Using this approach they believe they can improve the accuracy of drilling from 20 to 70%.

I do  have one small gripe: I don’t think they can say (as they do in the article) that the findings are revolutionary.  The findings support theories that have been around for quite a while.  Perhaps these finding will have the effect of moving abiogenesis from being the “Rodney Dangerfield” of geologic science, and start to get real “Respect.”

A “Tipping Point” perhaps?

nb: I find this arena to be quite interesting from a “philosophy of science” perspective, as the “conventional” science has long dismissed this alternative view as “crack-pot” science.  Much of our understanding of energy consumption has been based on this being a “non-renewable” resource.  Perhaps that assumption is mistaken? Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift “in the wild?”

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to theformation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

The theory thus challenges the view that petroleum products are “fossil fuels” created over millions of years by the decaying of dinosaurs and ancient pre-historic plant life. It argues that petroleum may be a renewable resource that flows up from the magma. In fact, it is a theory that has had a recent resurgence to popularity with the release of the book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” by Thomas Gold.

Why do I bring this up? First, my daughter is a geology major, and so I have renewed interest in all things “rock.” Even more recently, I have been reading the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” in which the author, Pollan, constantly refers to the use of “fossil fuels” in the production of food. It struck me, after reading this over, and over again, that he has “bought in” to the traditional view completely. He rarely if ever refers to this as “petroleum products.” I have since noticed that the use of the term “fossil fuel” is quite prevalent in the media–far more so than the non-value statement petroleum.

I am sure this seems silly, but to me it is significant. By labeling this “fossil fuel” rather than “petroleum products” the authors are passing scientific judgment–that this is the way the oil is created. Not simply what type of product it is. It appears to me that by using “fossil fuel” as a phrase, people are trying to convey far more than simply a discussion about the pre-historic source of our fuel.

Now when would fossil fuel be a more appropriate word to use? When discussing coal, for instance.

I am not convinced that oil is produced through abiogenic processes, but I am convinced that there is still healthy debate concerning the topic.

Faithful readers may remember my post about the Russian News Agency incorrectly referring to the “Dark Side of the Moon.” (No, not the music…)  Well, here is another apparently common mis-perception.  I say common because I have been told the local TV media made the same mistake.

So, dear readers… send me an email telling me what YOU think is wrong with this picture! (I really need to come up with a prize for this–guest spot on the next “Brothers” podcast perhaps?)

1. “Did it suddenly appear?” A very good question. Actually I have been staring at it for a while, and wasn’t sure I wanted to say anything about it. Hey, you see a religious figure in your bathroom floor, people think you are nuts! But we were just chatting in the car, and I brought it up… and as I said, my son finished the sentence!
2. Was it just an inexplicable urge to study the floor?” Well, sometimes one gets bored sitting there… ya know?
3. “How do I know what Jesus looked/looks like?” From the documentary photographs and contemporary parchment etchings, of course.
4. “He looks more like…” (Jerry Garcia, later Jim Morrison, even this lowly correspondent.) Perhaps. And perhaps JG, JM and I are simply blessed with a divine countenance.
5. “How many people have you shown this to?” Well, until today, I haven’t SHOWN it to anyone. Those who have used the bathroom have all had opportunity to view Him, but apparently He reveals Himself only to those whom He chooses.
6. “Who installed the flooring? What is their religious affiliation?” The floor was installed when the house was constructed nearly 4 years ago. I have no idea what their religious affiliation is. One could speculate catholic for various reasons.
7. “Do we use any special cleaning materials when cleaning the floor?” Actually, we use normal water on a damp cloth. I suppose, given this highly religious event, it may well transform into Holy Water on contact. Perhaps I should squeeze out the cloth and sell small vials of the “Juice?” I have received a recommendation to start using frankincense and myrrh.

Send your questions my way! I will certainly answer them for you! And share the news with your friends and family! I am sure they would welcome the blessing received from this manifestation.

“When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you’ll never forget it.” Carl Sagan

Quoted from my Brother’s site:

Two Bradys, Two Brothers, Two Doctorates, and at least Two Views.

We discuss our different set ups, Windows for Steve (XP) and Mac OSX for Chris. I followed the directions found here.
More topics covered:

• Honda Civic Hybrid – See Steve’s blog entry and why Steve is now a Conservative environmentalist. (And what that means.)
• Why some want higher taxes on gas.
• Steve’s del.icio.us tags. Including “Cats kill birds, not windmills.“
• Environmental issues in general.
• iPhone (again).
• Cole’s Blog (”Who the Hell is He?” wanting internet transparency) and Being a Digital Native
• Rathole: Dad’s idea that our brains process in binary.

And we reached the end of GarageBand’s recording capacity.

So there you have it. Enjoy.

Oh–if you are a listener, please, write or comment and let us know. Obviously we talk, but it’s nice to know if we make a sound. (you know… tree… .forest… fall…)

In MY mind it’s not too bizarre that a “fictional band” is “reuniting” to fight a fictional problem.

All kidding aside, I am not a “disbeliever” in climate change. I do remain unconvinced that mankind is responsible for it. More to follow later, when I put together a podcast highlight how the “fake” 90% probability figure was created for the IPCC report.

I am not sure if this approach actually lends credibility to the argument that climate change is a man-made. When you read the story, the band continues to spoof on any number of subjects. Quoting:

In the new film, Reiner, reprising his role, takes credit for coining the term “global warming.” The band members discuss their long history of charity work, such as campaigns to help ferrets — by raising money to feed them Caesar salad — and to help people with high insteps.

As I see this, they are comparing Climate Change to ferrets, Caesar salad and high insteps. Hmmm. Perhaps Reiner is also not “a believer.”