12 E. E. ROSAIRE 
both. Purchase may be on a minor scale, such as the acquisition of 
proved or semi-proved acreage; or on a larger scale, such as the Tide 
Water Oil Company’s recent purchase of the producing properties 
owned by the Simms Oil Company. Similarly, discovery may be on 
a minor scale, in the nature of the development of new producing 
horizons in a field already in production, such as the recent discovery 
of deeper production (Cockfield) at Raccoon Bend, Austin County, 
Texas, by the Humble Oil and Refining Company. Discovery may 
also take the form of improvements in recovery methods, as in the 
development of the water drive at the Bradford Oil Field in Pennsyl- 
vania, and in the use of acid treatment in the producing lime horizons 
of Michigan. The development of cracking methods in the refining 
of crude oil is an equivalent of discovery. Finally, discovery may take 
the form most familiar to the geophysicist, i.e., the search for and 
development of production on previously dry or undiscovered struc- 
tures. 
Strategy, then, is the approach to the solution of a problem en- 
gendered by policy, and tactics is the means of solution. 
With a chosen policy of acquiring additional reserves, and a chosen 
strategy of searching for and developing production on untested 
structures, the problem of finding these structures is one of tactics. 
The strategist, however, may be stalemated, as under conditions 
where there is no known answer to the problem, or where the only 
answer is prohibitively expensive. Two such stalemates come to mind: 
One, the trench deadlock in the World War in 1916; and, the. second, 
the high cost of finding new production in 1914. 
These two cases are interesting because of the parallelism in ques- 
tion and answer. In each case, the answer was theoretically attainable, 
but only at a cost obviously so great that the practical attainment of 
the solution might well be a Pyrrhic victory. Further, in each case, 
the tactical means so badly needed had already been conceived, and 
in one case proposed. 
The trench deadlock was solved by the tank. Yet the idea of a 
mobile fortress was as old as the armored chariots of the Egyptians 
and the war elephants of the Carthaginians. In 1916, the mechanism 
required was already at hand in the shape of the caterpillar tractor 
in use in the grain fields of America. The major credit for the intro- 
duction of the tank is generally given to Lloyd George, who, however, 
did not invent the tank. His contribution was in the field of strategy, 
and consisted primarily of intangibles. For the successful introduction 
256 
