On Texas, Evolution and Practical Science

[Spock]

Over the years, on this board and its previous iterations-there has been a lot of sneering, faux concern, superiority (or whatever you want to term it) at the Texas school system and the teaching of science (read evolution)-in other Red states as well, but mainly Texas.

It struck me this morning that there is only ONE field of endeavor where a mass understanding of evolutionary time and principles, etc is required, and that is Oil and Gas Extraction. Obviously, Texas is THE world leader in this field.

Not too many oil geologists and petroleum engineers coming out of Massachusetts, but they come in droves from places like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana-the very places sneered at (mainly) by a denizen of a failing state on the west coast for their science(evolution) teachings.

We have a perfect "Canary in a Coal Mine" scenario here. When the oil and gas industry is affected by the things that have been expressed here over the years-then a point might be made.

[jarnon]

Future geologists and petroleum engineers take science courses in high school and college, and those courses teach natural history, including evolution, even in Texas. Industries that need high-tech workers, like petroleum, support programs that encourage young people to take STEM courses. On the other hand, workers who believe God created the world as it exists today, including oil deposits so Adam and Eve's descendants will have fuel for their cars, can still do plenty of jobs in the oil industry. I'd prefer if every citizen is educated in basic science, but that's for the Texans to decide.

[Spock]

On the other hand, workers who believe God created the world as it exists today, including oil deposits so Adam and Eve's descendants will have fuel for their cars, can still do plenty of jobs in the oil industry. I'd prefer if every citizen is educated in basic science, but that's for the Texans to decide.

I think we are generally saying the same thing in the part of your post that I did not quote here. However, I think the part quoted above highlights an absolutely wonderful facet of the oil industry. While it is a STEM heavy industry, it is also a place where Blue-Collar guys can regularly make 6 figures. No other industry provides that opportunity.

[MarleysGh0st]

Okay, Spock, I won't dwell on your opening shot at discrediting one side of the debate with your "sneering, faux concern, superiority" comment, but do you think the other side of the debate is perfectly respectful? If we go into their churches, we won't hear evolutionary scientists being condemned as unwitting or willing agents of the Devil?

It is true that the oil and gas industry (and before them, the coal industry) has historically employed a number of of geologists and paleontologists. It is not true that all of these scientists were educated in Texas; as a volunteer at PRI, I know that a number of them were educated right here at Cornell, as students of Gilbert Harris.

Regardless of where they got their education, though, whatever benefit they have provided to these industries comes from a scientific theory that entirely supports evolution and an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old.

If you want to provide examples of creationist theory being successfully used to make significant discoveries of oil, I'd love to read the citations.

[Spock]

Okay, Spock, I won't dwell on your opening shot at discrediting one side of the debate with your "sneering, faux concern, superiority" comment, but do you think the other side of the debate is perfectly respectful? If we go into their churches, we won't hear evolutionary scientists being condemned as unwitting or willing agents of the Devil?

It is true that the oil and gas industry (and before them, the coal industry) has historically employed a number of of geologists and paleontologists. It is not true that all of these scientists were educated in Texas; as a volunteer at PRI, I know that a number of them were educated right here at Cornell, as students of Gilbert Harris.

Regardless of where they got their education, though, whatever benefit they have provided to these industries comes from a scientific theory that entirely supports evolution and an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old.

If you want to provide examples of creationist theory being successfully used to make significant discoveries of oil, I'd love to read the citations.

1) I am not defending creationism and never have.

2) I never said all oil and gas geology type people come from Texas (or similar places). However, I submit that the vast majority of them come from such places-Probably, from access and familiarity to the industry. I also submit that the majority of those from other areas probably end up in Texas/Oklahoma or somewhere similar in the course of their career.

3) Marley>>>"If we go into their churches, we won't hear evolutionary scientists being condemned as unwitting or willing agents of the Devil?" I believe such comments are very limited here-The only times I have seen discussions even related to that here, are when they are brought forward by those pointing critically at such beliefs. Such posts then have repeatedly been used to generalize about the science stupidity (or whatever) of states like Texas.

4) My main point and it is a train of thought that I just have been formulating the last couple of days is that there is ONE and ONLY ONE industry that requires mass understanding and application of Evolutionary Time and Principles etc.

Despite the sneering(yes, sneering) at Texas Science education(or whatever) that has gone on for years here, Texas is the undisputed world leader in the ONE and ONLY industry that absolutely requires mass understanding and application of the principles of Geologic time.

5) Just formulating a train of thought on your post-I notice that you immediately made it into a "Creationism" thing. I absolutely and positively do NOT have a dog in that fight. I think it is interesting that you went the Creationism/evolution route right away. Were you attempting to discredit my thesis by putting me in a "Creationism" pigeonhole?

6) Once again, my thesis is that Texas is the undisputed world leader in the only industry that requires mass understanding of evolutionary time and principles-etc.

[MarleysGh0st]

2) I said "all" and you said "a vast majority"; both terms are exaggerations. Citations needed to document where they are actually educated. And, yes, they go where the work is, whether that's Texas, Venuezuela, the Middle East, the North Sea, North Dakota, etc. Is that relevant to the policies of the Texas Board of Education?

3) For this point, I went beyond the debate here, to address the motivations of those in the wider debate.

1 & 5) I went to the real intent of those behind the disputed policies in Texas. "Intelligent design" is a smokescreen that they've employed to get around the issue of separation of church and state, but I submit that the vast majority of them have one particular designer in mind, and it's not Zeus, Thor, Isis, Rama, Huitzilopochtli...or aliens from the planet Vulcan.

4 & 6) So what is your conclusion? My conclusion, as I stated in the previous post, is that those geologists are applying evolutionary theory and are in no way supporters of "teaching the controversy", etc.

[smilergrogan]

6) Once again, my thesis is that Texas is the undisputed world leader in the only industry that requires mass understanding of evolutionary time and principles-etc.

It seems to me your thesis is that Texas being the leader in the oil industry is evidence that Texas is also a leader in educating its citizens about "evolutionary time and principles". I don't know if that thesis is true or not, but it sure isn't very logical, for two reasons.

You mention petroleum engineers and geologists. Do they really have to understand evolution (which is a biological theory) to do their jobs well? Petroleum engineers need to know how to get the oil out of the ground - why does that require any understanding of evolution? Geologists need to understand the geological processes that formed oil-bearing rock formations so they can locate and characterize those formations in order to help the engineers figure out where and how to drill for the oil. I agree you can't be a good geologist without an appreciation for the timescales involved in geological processes, but that's different than an understanding of evolution. I think you can be an excellent geologist without accepting or understanding natural selection, genetic mutations, etc. that make up evolutionary theory. (Evolutionary biologists need to understand some geology in order to determine ages of fossils, understand mechanisms for population divergence, etc., but I don't think it's the other way around). And, as jarnon pointed out before, the majority of oil workers are not either engineers or geologists anyway - they just need to know how to operate the machinery that gets the oil out of the ground. No understanding of evolution required for that.

The other point is, why is the oil industry centered in Texas? Surely it's because that's where the oil is, not because of the educational preparation of the citizens. Massachusetts or South Carolina could have the best educated citizens in the country (I am not saying they do or do not), but they are guaranteed to have minimal oil industry without much oil in the ground. North Dakota's economy is booming because they have oil, not because their citizens are exceptionally well educated (I am not claiming they are or are not exceptional). So saying Texas is a leader in the oil industry is meaningless in advancing a claim that their citizens are better educated (and I am not saying they are or are not) than those in other states about evolution or any other topic.

[Spock]

1) Point Taken-I will change the terminology from "Evolutionary" time and so forth to "Geologic" time. I was uncomfortable with the original phrasing. Anyway, the basic concept is the same in arguing against a Young Earth and so forth.

2) FWIW, I have listened to (and read) hundreds of industry conference calls and presentations and and it is somewhat common to hear things like "These deposits were laid down as an algae-rich deposit in a shallow sea in the Devonian period early in the evolution of life on earth." Don't hold me to the accuracy of the time periods as it is merely an example, pulled from my ass.

3) Also per Marley, where people come from in the industry-during these calls and presentations, people who didn't grow up in the Patch often make jokes about it and highlight how unusual they are-it is anecdotal, but the best, I have at this point. I would also submit that those from other areas that are drawn to the industry tend to have a "Red State" (for lack of a better term) mindset.

4) "Why is Texas the world leader" and that whole paragraph and related thoughts. This enters the whole realm of political choices and is an absolutely fascinating area to think about.This is probably where my dog is in this fight.

Obviously, Texas is gifted in that area, but one could also argue that not too many years ago-California was a major leader in the industry (which still has huge potential there) and has chosen (for whatever reasons) not too pursue that industry.

I submit California has huge potential (Bakken, Eagle Ford type stuff) in the Monterey Shale and they are choosing not too pursue it. Yes, it has a more complicated geology-but that is a topic for another time. Once again, California could become a major leader in this type of field.

The Marcellus-New York has chosen not to pursue leadership(for whatever reasons) in this area and Pennsylvania seems to be.

To attribute oil industry leadership simply to accidents of geology is simplistic. Also remember not too many years ago-The Texas oil and gas extraction industry was almost being written off-prior to the Barnett, Eagle Ford and the rediscovery of the Permian.

Another area to look at is the comparison between the Montana and North Dakota sides of the Bakken. North Dakota is mostly private land and the Montana side is a lot of federal land. Yes, ND (seems) to have better geology, but there is also a lot of federal slow-rolling on the Montana side. One could argue(and many do) that if ND was federal land it would not have been able to take the leadership position that it has.

4) Once again, I have absolutely no interest in the Creationism side of this-Maybe my other dog in this fight is that I am sick to death of the superiority expressed here towards places like Texas/Oklahoma and North Dakota(remember , I just spent 3 days on a bus with a very liberal California lady who reinforced and refreshed this attitude)

5) So one way of restating my thesis might be: "Texas is the undisputed world leader in the ONLY industry that requires mass understanding and appreciation of scientific principles that disprove a young earth."

[Spock]

More on "World Leadership" of the industry being related to accidents of geology.

I talked about some US examples. But, globally this would also be an interesting area to look at.

1) Mexico is unbelievably blessed(Not a religious usage here) with fossil fuel resources. They could be world leaders in this field, but they have pissed it away and are now being forced (for lack of a better term) to look at opening up the industry to outside (Texas?) leadership.

2) It is awhile since I read about it-but there is concern by (Texas?) industry insiders that Venezuela is irretrievably damaging some of the best petroleum deposits on the planet. Not much world industry leadership coming out of Venezuela these days.

Corollary to my original thesis: World leadership in the industry is not due simply to accidents of geology.

[Spock]

Earlier I said that I believe that most of those drawn to the industry from non-oil patch areas would tend to have a "Red-State" mindset. Just to elaborate and clarify that you can have what I call a Red State mindset and be a Democrat.

A classic example of a Red-State mindset is shown in the quote below-by Tom Rukavina, a former Minnesota Democratic state represenative. Minnesota is finding unbelievable amounts of copper and nickel in the northeast part of the state. Some have termed it "Minnesota's Bakken" as it is in an area that was considered played out for mining. Accessing this asset is controversial in Minnesota.

From the story >>>"Former state Rep. Tom Rukavina, who lives here, was more brusque.

“I just wish one day that our good DFL senators, both of them, you know, would tell the environmentalists to quit crying wolf, you can’t be against everything,” he said. “You can’t want a broadband if there is no copper. You can’t want windmills if there is no nickel. You can’t want a medical device industry if there aren’t stents made of copper, nickel and stainless steel. So cut the crap and grow up.”<<<

That basically sums up what I call a "Red-State Mindset."

A link to the story ..
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 54441.html

[SpacemanSpiff]

If we go into their churches, we won't hear evolutionary scientists being condemned as unwitting or willing agents of the Devil?

Sounds like you stepped into my (current) FIL's church. Of course, they aren't that far from Dover PA, where there was a big to-do with the school board and what they were supposed to teach in science classes there a few years back. The preacher there condemned the courts as evil for slapping down the Intelligent Design forced co-curriculum, and later on suggested the church member pray for the lost souls (his words) that voted out the school board in the next election.

I don't mind him saying such things in the context of his church; that's what freedom of religion is about. But your version of religion doesn't trump mine, and it certainly doesn't trump what gets taught in public schools.

(BTW, I'll submit one thing about schooling that my parents did, and that I did with my kids -- see what the schools teach, read the texts, and fill in any omissions, errors, or things you just don't agree on with additional info.)

[silverscreenselect]

More on "World Leadership" of the industry being related to accidents of geology.

I talked about some US examples. But, globally this would also be an interesting area to look at.

1) Mexico is unbelievably blessed(Not a religious usage here) with fossil fuel resources. They could be world leaders in this field, but they have pissed it away and are now being forced (for lack of a better term) to look at opening up the industry to outside (Texas?) leadership.

2) It is awhile since I read about it-but there is concern by (Texas?) industry insiders that Venezuela is irretrievably damaging some of the best petroleum deposits on the planet. Not much world industry leadership coming out of Venezuela these days.

Corollary to my original thesis: World leadership in the industry is not due simply to accidents of geology.

The fact that the educational system in Texas is better than that in Mexico or Venezuela isn't exactly a cause for celebration.

[Bob Juch]

More on "World Leadership" of the industry being related to accidents of geology.

I talked about some US examples. But, globally this would also be an interesting area to look at.

1) Mexico is unbelievably blessed(Not a religious usage here) with fossil fuel resources. They could be world leaders in this field, but they have pissed it away and are now being forced (for lack of a better term) to look at opening up the industry to outside (Texas?) leadership.

2) It is awhile since I read about it-but there is concern by (Texas?) industry insiders that Venezuela is irretrievably damaging some of the best petroleum deposits on the planet. Not much world industry leadership coming out of Venezuela these days.

Corollary to my original thesis: World leadership in the industry is not due simply to accidents of geology.

The fact that the educational system in Texas is better than that in Mexico or Venezuela isn't exactly a cause for celebration.

I can't speak for today, but at the time I lived there Venezuela had an educational system better than the U.S. (on the average).

[Spock]

More on "World Leadership" of the industry being related to accidents of geology.

I talked about some US examples. But, globally this would also be an interesting area to look at.

1) Mexico is unbelievably blessed(Not a religious usage here) with fossil fuel resources. They could be world leaders in this field, but they have pissed it away and are now being forced (for lack of a better term) to look at opening up the industry to outside (Texas?) leadership.

2) It is awhile since I read about it-but there is concern by (Texas?) industry insiders that Venezuela is irretrievably damaging some of the best petroleum deposits on the planet. Not much world industry leadership coming out of Venezuela these days.

Corollary to my original thesis: World leadership in the industry is not due simply to accidents of geology.

The fact that the educational system in Texas is better than that in Mexico or Venezuela isn't exactly a cause for celebration.

Yep, we just have to throw our little dig in at Texas don't we? the one state that is booming in essentially every field, including the most high-tech fields. BTW, how is the education system doing in the 90% "Blue" areas like Detroit? For some reason, we are never too concerned here about education in those areas.

[silverscreenselect]

Yep, we just have to throw our little dig in at Texas don't we? the one state that is booming in essentially every field, including the most high-tech fields.

Well, I will give them credit for leading the nation in the highest percentage of people without health insurance.

[Spock]

Yep, we just have to throw our little dig in at Texas don't we? the one state that is booming in essentially every field, including the most high-tech fields.

Well, I will give them credit for leading the nation in the highest percentage of people without health insurance.

Of course, you went there. Well, first of all it's simply not a problem anymore. Obamacare is the law of the land and the problem is solved, or will be shortly.

Most importantly, you went there because it would be philosophically impossible for you to take a good, solid rational look at the policies that make Texas work as compared to other states. You can't get there so to speak.

[Spock]

Most importantly, you went there because it would be philosophically impossible for you to take a good, solid rational look at the policies that make Texas work as compared to other states. You can't get there so to speak.

When I said "Policies" in the above quote, I think I lapsed, by default, into liberal, or statist where everything is attributed to government policies. I should have said "Mindset and Policies" with mindset, probably being the most important.

Nothing was more refreshing to me on my recent Bakken trip in ND to hear comments from government officials about how their job was not to stand in the way of development, but instead it was to make sure the development met requirements and move forward. Industry people from other states such as Wisconsin commented repeatedly about how refreshing this approach was compared to most other states.

This whole area really helped me formulate my thoughts on the "Red-State" VS "Blue State" mindset. Remember, we had a very vocal example of the "Blue-State" mindset on our bus.

To those that attribute the ND boom to an accident of geology-remember it probably would not be happening at anywhere the same scale-if it were located in Wisconsin or Minnesota.

[Bob78164]

Yep, we just have to throw our little dig in at Texas don't we? the one state that is booming in essentially every field, including the most high-tech fields.

Well, I will give them credit for leading the nation in the highest percentage of people without health insurance.

Of course, you went there. Well, first of all it's simply not a problem anymore. Obamacare is the law of the land and the problem is solved, or will be shortly.

Well, no. Texas has declined to expand Medicaid. --Bob

[Spock]

Well, I will give them credit for leading the nation in the highest percentage of people without health insurance.

Of course, you went there. Well, first of all it's simply not a problem anymore. Obamacare is the law of the land and the problem is solved, or will be shortly.

Well, no. Texas has declined to expand Medicaid. --Bob

but

I can picture you rubbing your hands together and thinking "Oooh, I have a chance to take a political point against Texas(and Spock)." But heaven forbid, we ever take a serious look at why businesses (with middle class type employees) and also just plain middle class type people are moving in droves from California to Texas. Occidental Petroleum and Toyota being 2 recent prominent examples.

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00912 ... seat-texas

A Joel Kotkin article on the Toyota move.

Kotkin's body of work on this whole topic is informative of the issue in general.

A pull quote from the article that is related to previous posts in this thread.
>>>>Blessed with huge fossil fuel reserves, California once stood as one of the global centers of the energy industry. Now, with the exception of Chevron, which is shifting more operations out of state, all the major oil companies are gone, converting California from a state of energy producers to energy consumers, and, in the process, sending billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere for natural gas and oil that could have been produced here.<<<<<

[Bob78164]

Of course, you went there. Well, first of all it's simply not a problem anymore. Obamacare is the law of the land and the problem is solved, or will be shortly.

Well, no. Texas has declined to expand Medicaid. --Bob

but

I can picture you rubbing your hands together and thinking "Oooh, I have a chance to take a political point against Texas(and Spock)." But heaven forbid, we ever take a serious look at why businesses (with middle class type employees) and also just plain middle class type people are moving in droves from California to Texas. Occidental Petroleum and Toyota being 2 recent prominent examples.

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00912 ... seat-texas

A Joel Kotkin article on the Toyota move.

Kotkin's body of work on this whole topic is informative of the issue in general.

A pull quote from the article that is related to previous posts in this thread.
>>>>Blessed with huge fossil fuel reserves, California once stood as one of the global centers of the energy industry. Now, with the exception of Chevron, which is shifting more operations out of state, all the major oil companies are gone, converting California from a state of energy producers to energy consumers, and, in the process, sending billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere for natural gas and oil that could have been produced here.<<<<<

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Silicon Valley developed in California?

And by the way, notwithstanding the high-profile victories (gained at the cost of significant state tax revenues), there's no actual evidence that California is suffering a net loss of jobs to Texas. We are a much better state in which to be a worker. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

The 10 Worst State to Make a Living

http://www.money-rates.com/research-cen ... -a-living/

There's a link to the Best 10 in the article.

[Spock]

>>>Do you think it's a coincidence that the Silicon Valley developed in California?<<<

Nope, I give you Silicon Valley, but I note that it is a legacy from previous years(that admittedly still works today). Note that Tesla is not building its battery factory in California.

One of the main themes in Victor Davis Hanson's writings is that California today is (largely) operating on the legacy and foresight of previous generations.

For example, the water infrastructure that allowed southern California to flourish would simply not be built today=and I would add, major renovations and so forth will be very difficult to do.

>>>We are a much better state in which to be a worker. --Bob<<<<

That is simply your opinion derived from a Blue State-Statist mindset. The tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of middle class workers who have and are moving to Texas from California probably have a different opinion.

And we are just talking about Texas, the movement of middle-class workers to other states in the interior West is a whole 'nother side to the topic.

[Spock]

>>>>>>We are a much better state in which to be a worker. --Bob<<<<

In addition to my above comment on this, I would add that the u-haul data would suggest otherwise. I posted this earlier in the sunscreen thread, but it belongs here.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/05/the-ca ... al-prices/

When it costs twice as much to rent a u-haul from California to Texas, as it does the other way-this objective data point strongly suggests that it is not better to be worker in California than it is in Texas.

[Spock]

>>>>>>Do you think it's a coincidence that the Silicon Valley developed in California?<<<

California is pretty cocky about Silicon Valley and it will likely always be a center of the industry and so forth-But when you look at something as STUPID(a word people here are fond of applying to Texas) as the Google Bus Controversy, which epitomizes the "Blue-State" mentality, is Google always going to be willing to put up with that kind of crap-day in and day out for everything?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-2 ... -tech.html

Or when they are looking 10-20-30 years out and looking at various businesses to enter will other areas(like Austin) start looking pretty good for the next dollars of investment?

[Spock]

On the California Oil Industry-NOT a slam on California.

I am kind of impressed when I look at the amount of California oil production. The following link has a graph showing California and Texas oil production from 2000 to 2012. I do not vouch for the site itself, but the graph is similar to others on the internet.

http://calwatchdog.com/2013/05/06/tx-so ... roduction/

Most conservatives focus on the far right side of the graph that shows the huge increase in Texas, compared to California's curve staying flat. However, that is not where I am going as that is "Eagle Ford" and Permian and those may be special cases.

When you look at the years 2002 to about 2008, the production curve is almost exactly the same and, really the amount of production is not that far off between the 2, especially considering that there was probably been a lot more industry investment in Texas than in California.

You don't often think of California as an oil state, but it is still in 3rd Place-I think-behind Texas and North Dakota.

There is an axiom in the oil business that "The Best Place to Look for Oil, is Where Oil has Already Been Found." This saying was proven true in the rejuvenation (or whatever) of the Permian, The Bakken and probably the Eagle Ford as well.

And, obviously, there has been a lot of oil found in California. That sharp upward curve of Texas production on the right-just gives me a little itch-"Hmm. what might be found in California?" Especially if companies were looking with the same intensity as they are in Texas and North Dakota.

In April 2010, I was listening live when EOG broke the news of the Eagle Ford to the world. It was out in the industry previously as companies were leasing land there, but I date that as the official start of the Eagle Ford. That is only 4 years ago. This whole new oil thing is such early days.

Occidental Petroleum as part of their move to Texas is going to spin off California Resources, which will focus on increasing oil and gas production in the state.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-o ... story.html

As you may have noticed, I am absolutely intrigued by the oil and gas production industry (I missed my calling, but that is another story) and the thought of investing in a pure California play, from a geological perspective as a long-term deal might sound good to me-There is obviously huge political risk, but that might be built into the price of the stock right away.