W. V. O. Quine and I have proposed and defended a model for capturing the direction of the causal relation, one which utilizes the direction of the transference of quantities such as energy, momentum and heat in order to make sense of its asymmetrical features.1 While such an analysis is at loggerheads with the traditional Humean approach to causation, I feel that this "ontological" approach may help us understand, among other things, how the causal relationship can be stronger than that of the mere corre? lation of events; the transference model also serves as a criterion for de? termining the direction of causation without appealing to anthropomor? phic standards such as Gasking's manipulation version. Thus, it allows us to perceive causation in objective terms, retaining its rightful place in the physical sciences. Recently, D. Fair developed this model even further in order to antici? pate a variety of objections that have been raised, as well as to bring out its virtues.2 He, too, has met with criticism in D. Dieks' note on causation and the flow of energy3 while T. Beauchamp and A. Rosenberg have just re? cently submitted yet another batch of objections.4 It is clear that several important issues about the nature of causation have surfaced since the transference model was first proposed and subsequently attacked. If any? thing, I feel that their reactions indicate that the model is misunderstood, calling out for a clarification of its workings. Below, I will attempt to systematically cover and meet these criticisms, with hopes that the reader will see the model in a new and more favorable light. We often find in the physical sciences that there are certain fundamental quantities which are conserved throughout a physical interaction. The con? servation of momentum and energy are such well-known examples. Once such quantities are ascribed to objects an "accounting" problem arises when bodies interact in that we wish to know what happens to them before, during and after interaction takes place. For the purposes of illust? ration, consider the following experiment. It consists of two spheres, a and b, one moving and the other at rest at time^ At time2, a makes contact with b, comes to a halt while b moves off at time3. In other words, a lost all