Principles and Problems of Oil Prospecting in the Gulf Coast Country ? Discussion (e3d3c2d9-eebd-4ec0-91ab-d4dbe63db943)

G. SHERBURNE LAGERS (written discussion*).-Mr. Kennedy's discussion1 of Mr. Matteson's paper takes the form of a criticism of my own comments2 on this paper. Mr. Kennedy is a respected authority on matters pertaining to the salt-dome oil fields, and his characterization of my "elaborate figures" as "worthless" is sufficiently candid and comprehensive to warrant a brief reply. My "voluminous figures" consisted simply of a rough estimate of the minimum quantity of salt in the Humble dome, and a calculation of the volume of sea water and of the volume of saturated brine which this salt would represent. Mr. Kennedy apparently interprets my remarks as opposing the idea that so large a volume of salt could have been deposited from sea water, for lie cites the area and thickness of European salt beds; but nothing was further from my intention. Given an arm of the sea, an arid climate, and evaporation under a hot sun, it is easy to conceive the formation: of almost any thickness of bedded salt. I cited the figures in connection with Harris' theory of the origin of salt domes, according to which the plugs were formed by the deposition of salt from ascending brine solutions, owing to the drop in temperature as they neared the surface. I pointed out the well-known fact that the solubility of salt is only slightly affected by temperature, and that a drop of 80° C. would cause the deposition of less than one-tenth of the salt in solution; hence that more than ten times the volume of salt actually forming the plug must have been involved. If ten times the salt actually in sight be computed in terms of brine and multiplied by 50 or 60 to take into account all of the known salt domes, the resulting figure is so enormous that I am not at all as sure as Mr. Kennedy seems to be that the porous stratified rocks of eastern Texas and western Louisiana could contain or furnish so great a volume of migratory brine.