So they are as ignorant about the oil business as you are. Hardly a surprise. And "Gasland" is a joke, people have been lighting their well water on fire for generations, only someone ignorant of what happens when coal mines are dewatered would think it was caused by hydraulic fracturing.
But the documentary makes very clear that the instances alluded to arise only AFTER the fracking infrastructure goes in.
Thats the difference between me and a parrot like you. I am quite familiar with what this type of docudrama DOESN'T tell you. You don't have a clue...all you can do is parrot. I've suggested this before...fire off a neuron occasionally and learn something, stop being led around by the nose by your own ignorance of these topics.
Jiggscasey said:
Oh no? OK.... Why don't you write up a concise little narrative that explains the process for everyone in layman's terms. I mean, you know, replete with all the obligatory condescending bullshit on a personal level, but still possessing some semblance of substance. Tell us how the process in no way resembles a mini-earth quake. Or how the chemical mixture used is harmless.
Why? You haven't even displayed the minimum intelligence of a layman on any topic involved in the energy subforum. You certainly can't even show that during the process of reading what I have wrote you have actually even LEARNED anything, you can't even be counted on to google up some EIA numbers which anyone who wants to pretend to understand oil topics should be able to locate in less than 2 minutes of googling. Display a working intelligence and I would be more than happy to have a conversation on how hydraulic fracturing works, until then....learn to google something except peak oil propaganda.
Jiggsacasey said:
Regardless, to respond to your latest challenge, here's that pesky Joint Chiefs thing again:
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
Note page 25, and that flat-as-can-be tan segment in the bottom IEA graph.
Again...for the ignorant here who don't actually read their own references prior to pretending they have value.....page 2 of the cited reference:
"This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict
what will happen in the next twenty-five years."
Cool. So they speculate,and aren't predicting what's going to happen. I suggest you read the disclaimers on your references to determine if they are, or are not, worth dick. This document is better than a normal peaker document if only because they admit it up front when they do some good ol' fashioned arm waving.
Jiggscasey said:
No doubt, you'll have some epin spin-spective on what that passage "reeeeally" means.
No spin necessary when they admit they aren't trying to predict stuff. It requires some fool to pretend it has value when they themselves aren't willing to use it to predict anything.
Jiggscasey said:
It's telling that you had no comment on the WikiLeaks cable regarding that "violin playing" former Saudi-Aramco VP, though.
Heinberg is the violin player you moron, pay better attention to your own sources. al-Husseini has a decent resume...so does Dr. Saleri, the engineer who made darn certain that the peak oil accountant ( Matt Simmons ) was wrong when he wrote about Saudi oilfields.
Jiggscasey said:
That's the far-more impacting story that broke this week. A good decision on your part to ignore it. You guys haven't quite gotten your marching orders on how to spin that one. You probably won't, and just get back to your "tried and true" method of pretending I'M the one who's the zealot and parrot between the two of us. Irony.
al-Husseini wasn't talking about Saudi reserves, he was talking about every else in OPEC. Here is him clearing up why the cable was wrong. Seems like diplomats don't know any more about oil, reserves and resources than ignorant peak oil parrots.
RIGZONE - Ex-Aramco Official: US Cable Wrong to Dispute Saudi Reserves