The Real Deal on Brazil

[boedicca]

Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.

Let's look at Brazil's Energy Policy:

Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.

The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.

Stephen Hayward: The Secret to Brazil's Energy Success - WSJ.com


If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?

 

[Douger]

Because Brazil has something your masters want.Monsanto needs more farmland and Brazil has it. Simple isn't it. If Brazil doesn't like the way Dupont-Monsanto takes advantage of them and destroys what is left of the rest of their country they have a plan for that too. Blackwater/XE which they recently purchased.
Don't forgit to sing that thar Gawd Blass murka on your way home from work.

 

[JiggsCasey]

If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?

Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?

Houston Chronicle: Report says oil supplies in Fla. waters negligible - Offshore Oil Drilling

 

[editec]

You have been misinformed, Boed.



The Export-Import Bank approved loans to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.


Obama had nothing to do with it.

 

[RGR]

If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?

Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?

Incorrect. From you (or peak oil cultists in general) this is not a surprise. The amount of estimated oil remaining in the GOM according to Gorelick is quite substantial.

You won't hear this from peak oil cultists however, primarily because they are energy incompetents. Like Jiggsy. Go ahead, determine it for yourself, just ask him any question about the industry and see how fast he cuts and pastes someone else's answer...he isn't capable of generating one on his own.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama has no confidence in us (read: U.S.). He doesn't view our country as a community.
He does not instill a sense of self-worth. He gives no purpose or direction.

We are leaderless.

 

[Care4all]

You have been misinformed, Boed.



The Export-Import Bank approved loans to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.


Obama had nothing to do with it.

ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...

we have had a thread on this already.

 

[JiggsCasey]

If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?

Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?

Incorrect. From you (or peak oil cultists in general) this is not a surprise. The amount of estimated oil remaining in the GOM according to Gorelick is quite substantial.

You won't hear this from peak oil cultists however, primarily because they are energy incompetents. Like Jiggsy. Go ahead, determine it for yourself, just ask him any question about the industry and see how fast he cuts and pastes someone else's answer...he isn't capable of generating one on his own.

Poetic irony.

At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.

You're such an unrivalled asshole. LOL. And what a good little loyal globalist you are, carrying water for all things "infinite growth." What a tool.

"Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.

Man-up and present some proven reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick". You know, like you fail to do time and time again every time you engage me on the topic. Shock me, for once. Rather than punt to hollow personal insinuation that does ZERO for your argument, do the work. How is the Florida Senate study "wrong?" Let me guess: It doesn't factor "shale gas?" ... lol-tastic.

God, do you ever suck at this, "industry insider."

 

[RGR]

At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.

You cannot support your opinion. All you can do is provide a link to someone else saying something, you do not have the ability to judge its validity in the least. Parrots only fool fools into thinking that they understand the words they use.

I supplied a reference name...I did not expect you to catch it in your lunge for name calling as a substitute for thought.

"Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.

Go back and find the name I dropped. If you can, I will then provide the page in his book which references "quite substantial" estimates.

Man-up and present some proven reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick".

I certainly didn't say anything about reserve numbers, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to know anything about them or the differences among the various categories. Go see the above paragraph related to the disadvantages of being a parrot.

God, do you ever suck at this, "industry insider."

I've already mentioned that I'm not in industry anymore. You should try out this thing called "reading comprehension", it would help you from making all these factual errors you are so fond of.

 

[Trajan]

You have been misinformed, Boed.



The Export-Import Bank approved loans to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.


Obama had nothing to do with it.

ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...

we have had a thread on this already.

however, I seethe issues at stake and worth discussion in the article are;

Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.

The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.

 

[JiggsCasey]

At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.

You cannot support your opinion. All you can do is provide a link to someone else saying something, you do not have the ability to judge its validity in the least. Parrots only fool fools into thinking that they understand the words they use.

I supplied a reference name...I did not expect you to catch it in your lunge for name calling as a substitute for thought.

"Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.

Go back and find the name I dropped. If you can, I will then provide the page in his book which references "quite substantial" estimates.

Man-up and present some proven reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick".

I certainly didn't say anything about reserve numbers, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to know anything about them or the differences among the various categories. Go see the above paragraph related to the disadvantages of being a parrot.

I've already mentioned that I'm not in industry anymore. You should try out this thing called "reading comprehension", it would help you from making all these factual errors you are so fond of.

Reading comprehension? From you? That's some stunning irony. Your strategy is: When backed into a corner, delay and keep them busy with subterfuge. Tool.

Your perpetual scavenger hunt isn't stalling for you any longer. It's very easy for you to just provide the figures when challenged to do so. But you're unable to support your hollow claim. Your endless aversion to ever meet direct and clear challenges indicate you don't have any idea what you're talking about, you unabashed fossil fuel industry drone. What is "Quite Substantial" that you're trying to pass off in this latest line of oil fraud?

"Quite substantial" indeed. Keep dancing, coward.

Supporting a claim on message forums means linking to people in the industry, or those who endorse studies conducted by people in the industry. You understand how this works, don't you forum fraud? When you read a newspaper piece, you ARE able to tell the difference between news and opinion, right? Or you so fucking Fox Newsed that you can no longer tell the difference?

I meet debate standards. You run from them. And you hate the fact that you can't fool anyone here with your double-talk and goofy rationale. That's because you've been exposed many months ago, when you obviously joined here to pretend there's "plenty of oil." LOL!!

All you have in your lame arsenal is spin, straw man creation, and a Saudi-Aramco executive who punts to "technology" and nothing more.

My gawd, do you EVER suck at this.

 

[RGR]

Reading comprehension? From you? That's some stunning irony. Your strategy is: When backed into a corner, delay and keep them busy with subterfuge. Tool.

So far I have answered at a level of detail you are not capable of responding to, on your favorite oil report. And I offered to provide the page number from a given author that you might review how much the GOM has yet to offer.

Either you ignore the hints I try and provide because you are as ignorant as you appear, or you do not wish to actually understand the information involved.

I meet debate standards.

Well, if nothing else you have certainly provided the largest belly laugh I have had all day. Thank you.

 

[JiggsCasey]

In other words, you can't link to support your claim.

Is it Steven Gorelick? Jamie Gorelick? What is the problem here for you? Sure seems like you're hoping to slink out of this latest direct challenge by pretending it's up to me to do YOUR work after you snuck in some "name dropping." LOL... Your pretentious posting style remains ever present.

Please say your source is Steven Gorelick. I'd love for you to punt to his uber fail, long-debunked book of "neo-cornucopian" pablum.

Once more, for accountability, you made another baseless, vague claim that the Gulf contains ESTIMATED reserve totals that are "quite substantial." And yet, when challenged to back up your work, you mention someone named "Gorelick" and flat REFUSE to link to what you're talking about.

I know you're taking a beating lately, so if this is your white flag moment, just say so.

 

[HUGGY]

Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.

Let's look at Brazil's Energy Policy:

Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.

The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.

Stephen Hayward: The Secret to Brazil's Energy Success - WSJ.com


If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?

Really??.... Just how exactly does Obama personally make billions in loans to Brazil or anyone?

This sounds like a Glenn Beck rant on bad acid.

 

[RGR]

In other words, you can't link to support your claim.

In other words, you need to demonstrate...again....that you can't read. Jesus Jiggsy, pick up a book already, learn to Google, every time you do this "challenge prior to reading" nonsense you get your nuts kicked clean up into your lungs.

Gorelick, S.M., 2010, Oil Panic and The Global Crisis, p. 129

Referencing Pinsker, L.M., Raining Hydrocarbons in the Gulf, Geotimes June 2003

"Cornell University professor of geology Larry Cathles estimates that there might be much more oil and gas than that: as much as a trillion barrels of oil and gas in just a portion of the Gulf sediments, although unconventional recovery methods would be required to produce them."

So tell us parrot, what moron mistakes a Houston Chronicle for debate quality insight when there is actual science available? Or do you just not know the difference, the most likely explanation?

Please say your source is Steven Gorelick. I'd love for you to punt to his uber fail, long-debunked book of "neo-cornucopian" pablum.

Reference provided parrot. And that chapter containing the reference I provided? It has 192 references for just that chapter....I don't suppose you know what those are, but you can't say anyone with a brain wouldn't notice that versus your library of utube videos.

I know you're taking a beating lately, so if this is your white flag moment, just say so.

We'll talk when you grow enough new neurons to figure out why your "i'll trade you 5 if you give me 2" went so bad. As far as me taking a beating...well....lets just say that the AAPG national conference is next week in Houston, and between you and me, only one of us is presenting there. Again. The other? Well.....I imagine rounding up newspaper articles to quote from is pretty difficult for a man of your...inabilities.....

 

[JiggsCasey]

In other words, you can't link to support your claim.

In other words, you need to demonstrate...again....that you can't read. Jesus Jiggsy, pick up a book already, learn to Google, every time you do this "challenge prior to reading" nonsense you get your nuts kicked clean up into your lungs.

You just don't get it, do you jackass? Providing a link is for your OWN accountability. I fully realize that I'm CAPABLE of looking up your laughable claim. The point is for you to either link to exactly what you think he's saying, or transcribe passage where he's saying it.

Otherwise, you just come off looking like you're scared to cover the context of your man's words. And sure enough, I can see why:

Gorelick, S.M., 2010, Oil Panic and The Global Crisis, p. 129

Referencing Pinsker, L.M., Raining Hydrocarbons in the Gulf, Geotimes June 2003

"Cornell University professor of geology Larry Cathles estimates that there might be much more oil and gas than that: as much as a trillion barrels of oil and gas in just a portion of the Gulf sediments, although unconventional recovery methods would be required to produce them."

So it was goofy Steven Gorelick you were crowing about. Good. Why was that so difficult for you? Wait, don't answer that.

Even though it was actually some author from "Geotimes" quoting some Cornell professor from 2003. Not even Gorelick himself. I can see why you were reluctant to provide a link. You remembered poorly and had to go find it. Nevermind that Geotimes is an unabashed abiotic theory site.

Unfortunately, that's a few too many "might be as much as" and "unconventional recovery methods" for one sentence. Typical of Gorelick to jump all over it though. He's a "plenty of oil" proponent, and you're obviously one of his followers. You even bought his book, and are probably eager to absorb his new documentary: "The Economy of Happiness!" ... Or, "hooray for everything!"

As for Cathles, shocking that he's a Cornell colleague of the great Thomas Gold, modern god-father of abiotic theory goofiness. Colleges don't discover oil. Oil companies do. Shocking also that eight years later, no one has upgraded this 70-billion "find" off the coast of Louisiana to "proven reserves." That's because it's a bunch of crap, and your favorite author cherry picked the quote, writing backwards from his conclusions. Sorta like you do.

Even though you entered the forum admitting oil is organic, you sure are leaning on a lot of abiotic theorists to support your "plenty of oil" claims.

Here's the Oil Drum's take on the exaggerated "find," as amplified in the goofy "Geotimes."

I called and talked to Larry Cathles and he said it was a bogus fabrication. There is a large amount of source rock down there, and his group studied where it was migrating to, but in no sense did they find significant amounts of recoverable oil.​

As one ToD commentor put it five years ago, "Until further notice, consider this BS ... Just the estimate of 1-2 years till production is enough to show the absurdity of the report."

Gorelick may not adhere to abiotic theory, but he definitely is similar to you. So it's clear why you bought his book. You both insist "technically recoverable reserve total" means something at all tangible, that technology will ride to the rescue any time now, and that transition to unconventional sources can and will be seamless.

So tell us parrot, what moron mistakes a Houston Chronicle for debate quality insight when there is actual science available? Or do you just not know the difference, the most likely explanation?

LOL. The difference between my link and yours, jaggov, is that mine sources a state senate requested non-partisan study using federal government data. Yours quotes a known abiotic oil theorist and colleague of Thomas Gold. Good stuff.

Please say your source is Steven Gorelick. I'd love for you to punt to his uber fail, long-debunked book of "neo-cornucopian" pablum.

Reference provided parrot. And that chapter containing the reference I provided? It has 192 references for just that chapter....I don't suppose you know what those are, but you can't say anyone with a brain wouldn't notice that versus your library of utube videos.

And yet, of all the references you could have picked, you chose that fatally flawed one from Geotimes.

I know you're taking a beating lately, so if this is your white flag moment, just say so.

We'll talk when you grow enough new neurons to figure out why your "i'll trade you 5 if you give me 2" went so bad.

That's not at all what I said, you perpetual fraud. Yet you keep trying to trot that false claim out there. This is getting really bad for you.

As far as me taking a beating...well....lets just say that the AAPG national conference is next week in Houston, and between you and me, only one of us is presenting there. Again. The other? Well.....I imagine rounding up newspaper articles to quote from is pretty difficult for a man of your...inabilities.....

LOL. Try not to think about this perfect fail when you're on the podium. Your throat might close up.

In fact, loosen your collar, and breathe deeply, and try not to think about the fact that your entire platform is one big puff piece that does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Regardless of whether such scrutiny comes from chief petroleum geologists or Associated Press journalists. Don't swallow too hard.

Oh wait. By presenting, you just meant presenting name tags at the door?

 

[RGR]

I fully realize that I'm CAPABLE of looking up your laughable claim. The point is for you to either link to exactly what you think he's saying, or transcribe passage where he's saying it.

No one here assumes you are capable of using google, know what a footnote is, or can think, because you consistently prove it.

And only a sophomoric twit would ever think that LINKS are required, if you can't look up scientific references for yourself, go get a liberry card and learn how to use it.

Even though it was actually some author from "Geotimes" quoting some Cornell professor from 2003. Not even Gorelick himself. I can see why you were reluctant to provide a link.

Are you really so ignorant to not know what a footnote is?

Unfortunately, that's a few too many "might be as much as" and "unconventional recovery methods" for one sentence.

Unfortunate for you perhaps, but the statement in the peer reviewed research covers my original claim of your seemingly natural ignorance quite well. It is quite obvious, at least to everyone who reads our conversations, that you have an agenda to present only information from peaker dogma.

Typical of Gorelick to jump all over it though. He's a "plenty of oil" proponent, and you're obviously one of his followers. You even bought his book, and are probably eager to absorb his new documentary: "The Economy of Happiness!" ... Or, "hooray for everything!"

Please provide reference showing that Gorelick is a plenty of oil proponent. His position in the book I referenced certainly covered the peaker religious angle quite well.

Even though you entered the forum admitting oil is organic, you sure are leaning on a lot of abiotic theorists to support your "plenty of oil" claims.

I never said any such thing. So now we can add the memory of a gnat to your talents.

As one ToD commentor put it five years ago, "Until further notice, consider this BS ... Just the estimate of 1-2 years till production is enough to show the absurdity of the report."

So now you are parroting blogs in an attempt to elevate their technical analysis to the level of published research? Don't you have a utube video of a 2nd grader discrediting the research, that would have just as much weight on this topic.

And yet, of all the references you could have picked, you chose that fatally flawed one from Geotimes.

Fatally flawed? Because a poster at TOD said so? I am curious now, do you know what a peer reviewed science journal is, where you can read one, and why they matter, when compared to utube talking head videos and bloggers? Why don't you just quote yourself claiming that everything you don't believe is bogus, it would conceal your inability to think for yourself and maximize your cutting and pasting skills.

That's not at all what I said, you perpetual fraud. Yet you keep trying to trot that false claim out there. This is getting really bad for you.

I'm not the one who can't figure out that trading 5 for 2 is a great way for me to get rich, and you to demonstrate why you are a parrot without the ability to think for yourself.

Oh wait. By presenting, you just meant presenting name tags at the door?

Oh please. Why don't you come on down and bring along some utube videos? Maybe a copy of Deffeyes' book, with some highlighted passages you can read from, thereby minimizing the number of times you mess up all those multi-syllable words? For God's sake, just don't try and ad-lib, you suck when you go off the script the peakers spoon feed you.

 

[Old Rocks]

RGR;

Cornell University professor of geology Larry Cathles estimates that there might be much more oil and gas than that: as much as a trillion barrels of oil and gas in just a portion of the Gulf sediments, although unconventional recovery methods would be required to produce them."
.................................................................................................................

Couple of red flags there, RGR. How much more spills can the Gulf take before we see a major impact that wil severely affect it's ability to supply food to us?

 

[RGR]

RGR;

Cornell University professor of geology Larry Cathles estimates that there might be much more oil and gas than that: as much as a trillion barrels of oil and gas in just a portion of the Gulf sediments, although unconventional recovery methods would be required to produce them."
.................................................................................................................

Couple of red flags there, RGR.

Absolutely Rocks. Someone with functioning neurons, such as yourself, can read what I presented and then we have a conversation around the connotations in "might", there not being much dispute over unconventional production techniques and their effectiveness.

And then we would discuss what part of that trillion "might" be useful to society.

Jiggsy doesn't understand any of this of course, his dogma does not allow it.

How much more spills can the Gulf take before we see a major impact that wil severely affect it's ability to supply food to us?

Don't know. The Gulf has suffered two of the largest oil spills in North America in the past 35 years. Certainly the effects of both of those spills were not neglible, but neither did they destroy the Gulf or its ability to supply food.

Do we have any ecologists who frequent this forum we could ask?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Oh please. Why don't you come on down and bring along some utube videos? Maybe a copy of Deffeyes' book, with some highlighted passages you can read from, thereby minimizing the number of times you mess up all those multi-syllable words? For God's sake, just don't try and ad-lib, you suck when you go off the script the peakers spoon feed you.

LOL. You're such a flailing cauldron of fail at this point. Like a lobster dumped in a bubbling pot. Caught leaning on the 8-year-old prose of an abiotic oil theorist for what might be under the GoM. A claim uncorroborated by much of anyone for 7 years, until your hero Steven Gorelick picked up the trail. Abiotic flappers everywhere rejoice!

Don't swallow too hard, denialist parrot. Discerning ears might be listening while you're "presenting."

IMF warns oil growing scarce, more costly - Yahoo! News

Oops. The International Monetary Fund now? That's gonna leave a mark.

Don't think of this story while you're up there. Think of happy thoughts, and shale gas.

Gosh, who's next? Will the rest hold firm, now that the first pillar of global empire has acknowledged peak is here?... The World Bank? USAID? Exxon-Mobil? ... The Pengaton? (oh wait, it already did last year.)

Quick! Ruffle through your Steven Gorelick bible and find that passage on how the IMF is lying. How it's part of the great conspiracy to artificially inflate global oil price. Surely he covered that angle.