I thank Ray (1985) for the interest shown in my paper (Schmoker, 1984). His analysis illustrated mathematical relations not specifically addressed in my manuscript. 1 do not believe, however, that these results are significant or that they weaken my arguments. He demonstrated only the obvious point that if two variables correlate with a third variable, they will correlate with each other. Further more, his analysis and conclusions are based on the assumption of an exponential porosity-depth relation. I would argue that such a relation is an effect of subsurface diagenesis that does not explain the cause, and that Ray has approached the problem backward. The proper con clusion would be that, for certain simple basins, an expo nential porosity-depth relation follows logically from the idea that porosity decreases in the subsurface as a function of thermal maturation. Perhaps the point that should be emphasized here is that depth (z) in and of itself does not affect or control geologic
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James W. Schmoker (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: