Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:14 pm
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.