Picasso Moon vs. Steve

Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:36 am by Steve

Picasso Moon wrote:
Steve wrote:
Picasso Moon wrote:Steve, you still haven't dealt with any of Berman's extensive ANALYSIS, which was done up to a month ago, vs aging assessments you present, all you've done is call him names such as "shill" and "clueless."

What analysis? When an ANALYSIS is contradicted by REALITY, count me on the practical side every time. You might think his ANALYSIS declaring the moon is made of green cheese is perfectly acceptable ANALYSIS, me, I'll stick with the rocks brought back and analyzed by the astronauts thanks.

The article has lots of analysis, all you have done is cast aspersions. You haven't dealt with the analysis, Crimson McSteve.

Fine. Lets deal with just this one point.

For analysis to be worth diddly, it is required to be based on evidence. Facts, data, etc etc. All the analysis in the world claiming that 2+2=5 or the moon is made of green cheese is ridiculous in light of a math course or physical evidence retrieved by humans. So lets take Arts basic knowledge for a spin, shall we? Just one example from the legions I'm sure are available.

Mr I Know Shale Berman wrote:ASPO Interview, July, 2010
One other important thing is the Barnett shale. We keep coming back to it because it's the only play that has much more than 24 months worth of history.

Now we have the Kentucky Geological Survey, Eastern Section AAPG presentation, September 2007.

"A total of 304 Devonian Shale gas wells have been identified in eastern Kentucky with at least 60 months of publicly available production data and that are producing from the shale only (not commingled with the Mississippian Big Lime or other formations). Production data are availble for an additional 317 Devonian Shale gas wells in the GTI data set. The GTI data are proprietary, however, and the well identifications and locations must remain anonymous."

So to scale in these quotes....we have Mr Shale, having been contradicted 3 years earlier by the Kentucky Geological Survey, because...well....you know...its all DIFFICULT and stuff to google up the HUNDREDS of shale data with production longer than 24 months? Maybe Art doesn't know that 60 is a bigger number than 24? Or, is it more likely that Art just doesn't know much about shale in general? Doesn't know where they are, how long they've been around, or in the example provided, even how long the production data strings are for those other shales he has forgotten/doesn't know about.

In either case, this lack of fundamental knowledge on the topic means if you want to trust his ANALYSIS, knock yourself out. You might not think that someone doing ANALYSIS should know anything about the topic at hand, me, I like it when ANALYSIS is based in reality, knowledge, experience, SOMETHING as a foundation.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:22 am by Picasso Moon

It's hardly like Berman only dealt with Barnett. Anyone who bothered reading the article knows better, he deals in DETAIL with several fields. And what do you do? You present a survey in which

The GTI data are proprietary, however, and the well identifications and locations must remain anonymous."

Promo by Kentucky mining interests, with details kept SECRET, that's what you present to contradict Berman? Have you no shame?

(Edit to add: you haven't dealt with the pollution evidence presented to counter your previous bluster.)

And again, answer the question posed here, in bold, why don't you?!:

Picasso Moon wrote:
Steve wrote:
mcgowanjm wrote:^
The 'resource curse' doesn't refute what I say, but acknowledges it. Any nation trying to conserve(Ecuador for ex;}
takes a hit from the Empire.

Ecudor isn't an empire.

mcgowanjm wrote:Only Full throttle Production For Export is allowed by the Same Empire(see Iraq for ex;} And as the 'Export' is harder and harder to get, any and all limits to exploration/production will be cast aside
(see GoM for ex.;}

Now I'm lost. What does GOM have to do with exports? The US hasn't been a net exporter since like the 70's, and anything going on in the GOM (or Bakken for that matter) isn't going to change that anytime soon, if ever.

You respond as if mcgowanjm stated Ecuador was an empire, when he was clearly presenting it as a nation threatened by the Empire. And you respond in the second instance as if the land export model is based on GOM, it clearly isn't and mcgowanjm made that clear. So either you can't read for shit, or else you are misrepresenting what he said and his sources. Which is it, McClown Crimson Steve? Or are you really just Dennis again?

Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:10 pm by Steve

Megadoom wrote:
Aussie wrote:
Megadoom wrote:Using the same logic they applied I can run this whole country from the energy produced by my left testicle.

Now that's an illogical argument I would like to hear.

Not at all illogical. Immense energy can be derived from matter if the "total" amount is harnessed - E=MC2

Not quite a proper analogy though. For example, no one has ever accelerated a piece of human anatomy up to lightspeed, or any fraction thereof, and then decelerated it in such a way as to recapture a significant portion of the energy which went into accelerating it in the first place. EROEI of <1 is guaranteed.

Estimating the approximate resource of Marcellus shale gas available is much easier. Its already been done (found, drilled, completed and produced) for example. Even better, there is plenty of data showing, for example, that A) The Marcellus has a known thickness and extent B) It contains natural gas C) The scf/ton or other inplace value can be determined by physical testing. This information can then be used, using mathematics of course, to provide an estimate of the resource in place.

Admittedly, the particulars on that calculation induce some uncertainty into the answer. The 20 years of supply might be less. Then again...it might be MORE. Kunstlers number for supply is actually quite a bit higher than the last USGS estimate. And quite a bit lower than Engelders estimate.

MegaDoom wrote:What are we fighting about? Kunstler? Looking back through this thread it seems as though most of us are upset that Steve doesn't like and agree with Kunstler.

True dat. I hate it when people preen about topics they know nothing about, worse yet, when they could have made a phone call and gotten the basics but choose to just shoot off their mouths without that knowledge instead. Its tough enough trying to talk to people about peak oil when these types are continually spewing evidence to prove how little we know about the industry involved, or the science in general.

MegaDoom wrote:Kunstler's biggest argument against gas fracking is the fact it's not sustainable, it won't end US dependency on oil, and it actively harms the environment. I agree with that. You don't? If you agree with that than there's no reason to fight about the details of gas production.
Megadoom

There is no such thing as sustainable. In the end, its all just a matter of time.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:37 pm by Megadoom

Steve, seriously, have you gotten laid lately?

Gas production is a fart in the PO shit pile. It will not significantly offset conventional production losses, and neither will it replace 300 nuclear reactors.

The solution we need isn't found in searching for more energy, it's in using less, and demanding less. That comes about through something we're deathly afraid of - death, contraction, and decay.

We should all look to cancer as a great lesson. Cancer kills us by rapid unrestricted growth...and then it dies too. Sustainable culture is built around low energy, high efficiency, and accepting death as a good thing.

Megadoom

Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:48 pm by Steve

Picasso Moon wrote:It's hardly like Berman only dealt with Barnett.

So its okay to make ignorant statements about the Barnett? Well....okay....can't disagree with you when you agree with me.

Picasso Moon wrote:Have you no shame?

For quoting Berman, and then spending less than 5 minutes finding prior information which refutes his "knowledge" on the topic? Called fact checking where I come from.

Picasso Moon wrote:You respond as if mcgowanjm stated Ecuador was an empire,

When mcgowanjm writes to an external audience, rather than his own interpretation of....well...whatever he means when seems to indicate Ecuador is an empire....maybe his meaning will be more clear. Last I looked, the US wasn't an empire either....hell, are their ANY empires around he might have been referring to? You got me....ask him what he meant, I certainly didn't write it and obviously had a difficult time understanding it.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:55 pm by Steve

Megadoom wrote:Steve, seriously, have you gotten laid lately?

Why Mega....I'm embarassed... :oops:

MegaDoom wrote:Gas production is a fart in the PO shit pile. It will not significantly offset conventional production losses, and neither will it replace 300 nuclear reactors.

Have you seen the difference between conventional oil production, and the totals when the condensate and liquids are counted? Its like, 1/8 of the total. Admittedly, not a majority, but I'm not so sure I consider it a fart. Plus, there is plenty more of it, which doesn't matter much in the short run while there is still alot of oil around, but it does matter in the long run, as conventional oil production continues to decline.

MegaDoom wrote:Sustainable culture is built around low energy, high efficiency, and accepting death as a good thing.

Megadoom

Low energy and high efficiency is good. Be it cars, houses, or whatever. Accepting death....well...thats more philosophical. Some of us are well aware that none of us gets out of here alive, and aware early rather than late. I wonder sometimes how it will play out with the children, more than anything.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:52 pm by Picasso Moon

Steve wrote:
Picasso Moon wrote:It's hardly like Berman only dealt with Barnett.

So its okay to make ignorant statements about the Barnett? Well....okay....can't disagree with you when you agree with me.

You make it seem as if his analysis is limited to Barnett. It isn't. This is just one more deception attempt on your part, Mr Shill.

Picasso Moon wrote:Have you no shame?

For quoting Berman, and then spending less than 5 minutes finding prior information which refutes his "knowledge" on the topic? Called fact checking where I come from.

You haven't dealt with his complete analysis at all, again you attempt to slander him by making it seem his analysis was limited to one field. You have no shame indeed.

Picasso Moon wrote:You respond as if mcgowanjm stated Ecuador was an empire,

When mcgowanjm writes to an external audience, rather than his own interpretation of....well...whatever he means when seems to indicate Ecuador is an empire....maybe his meaning will be more clear. Last I looked, the US wasn't an empire either....hell, are their ANY empires around he might have been referring to? You got me....ask him what he meant, I certainly didn't write it and obviously had a difficult time understanding it.

There is zero difficulty in understanding the sentence

Any nation trying to conserve(Ecuador for ex;} takes a hit from the Empire.

It's quite clear he is saying Ecuador (or any nation which exports oil) is facing a threat from the Empire if it tries to conserve. This is plain English. Your disgusting attempt to make it seem as if the sentence is not clear demonstrates that it's not your reading ability that's at play here, it's that you are misrepresenting what he wrote. It's quite a typical tactic of shills and trolls.
And you totally fail to deal with

mcgowanjm wrote:
Only Full throttle Production For Export is allowed by the Same Empire(see Iraq for ex;} And as the 'Export' is harder and harder to get, any and all limits to exploration/production will be cast aside
(see GoM for ex.;

Now I'm lost. What does GOM have to do with exports? The US hasn't been a net exporter since like the 70's, and anything going on in the GOM (or Bakken for that matter) isn't going to change that anytime soon, if ever.

Quite clear here that GOM is brought up as an example of limits to exploration/production being cast aside (such as eco-regulations), not at all in connection with exports. Once again, unless your ability to read is 4th grade level, the meaning is very clear, you are just misrepresenting what he wrote. I cannot see why anyone should take seriously anything you write.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:22 pm by Steve

Picasso Moon wrote:You make it seem as if his analysis is limited to Barnett. It isn't.

If he knew about these other shale plays, then how do you explain him not knowing about their more extensive production histories? Took me 5 minutes to find a reference available on the web. Think maybe his office doesn't have internet?

Picasso Moon wrote:You haven't dealt with his complete analysis at all, again you attempt to slander him by making it seem his analysis was limited to one field. You have no shame indeed.

Its already been demonstrated he didn't know about at least one other shale play. The extent of his knowledge of other plays (excluding the ones in Kentucky he obviously isn't familiar with) appears to be limited to showing the location of them on maps. Lots of people put them on maps...that isn't analysis either.

Picasso Moon wrote:
Any nation trying to conserve(Ecuador for ex;} takes a hit from the Empire.

It's quite clear he is saying Ecuador (or any nation which exports oil) is facing a threat from the Empire if it tries to conserve. This is plain English.

Which is why I asked about Ecuador being an empire. Is Ecuador an empire? Does it suppress its own people as they conserve? Hell...I don't know...which is why I ASKED.

Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:46 pm by mcgowanjm

When mcgowanjm writes to an external audience, rather than his own interpretation of....well...whatever he means when seems to indicate Ecuador is an empire....maybe his meaning will be more clear. Last I looked, the US wasn't an empire either....hell, are their ANY empires around he might have been referring to? You got me....ask him what he meant, I certainly didn't write it and obviously had a difficult time understanding it.

Hold on a sec. It's evident I've been away somewhere (watching Auburn football leave the state of Alabama
for instance!;} :roll:

.

The USEmpire is the All Encompasing Zeitgeist.

You think it's a Cosmic Accident that the $ is the World's Reserve Currency?
That 25% of the World's Oil magically makes it's way to a nation of 6% of the World's Pop
while borrowing 75% of the cost?

At last Ireland's politicians are talking about sovereignty, but they are 20 years too late. Sovereignty was lost when the country opened its border to US finance and when it allowed its domestic economic policy to be controlled from Germany by joining the euro. As in Iceland, the policy was driven by a tiny 'business' elite who benefited most from the inflation in asset prices and the development boom. The masses were lured into support by cheap money and tawdry consumer goods: a poor price for the loss of independence.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... ying-tiger

The above is the Hit Man Economic Model of the US.

The Olduvai beckons. :shock:

Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:50 pm by mcgowanjm

Which is why I asked about Ecuador being an empire. Is Ecuador an empire? Does it suppress its own people as they conserve? Hell...I don't know...which is why I ASKED.

Ecuador, like any 'recovering colony' is hyper sensitive to the US Empire.

And up until PO, if you didn't 'produce everything, conserve nothing' you were a 'take over candidate'.
See Iraq/Afghanistan and Ecuador for details.

Ecuador just went up against Colombia, Closed the US Airbase, and limited the amt of oil
exported-All NO NO's to the Imperial City.

As the US just attempted to assassinate Correa. The President.

Picasso Moon vs. Steve

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Re: What if OPEC figures out "fair price" is $150/barrel?

Who is online