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.
JiggsCasey said:
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.
JiggsCasey said:
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?
