pstarr wrote:I have personally called you out as a shill, scam artist, cornucopian dreamer, schemer, grifter, liar, and cheater. Now the truth is apparent to all but the most deluded or corrupt. What do you say? You still scamming this crap. Don't you have any shame?
Um, way to be fair and balanced there PSTARR. You and FOX News...
OF2 is just reporting on what is being found (more shale oil sources) - he doesn't control the environmental side issues of fracking, or all the MANY social costs which our idiot society refuses to factor into energy exploitation. (I think we should honestly try to do that -- lots less growth, but much more of a chance toward sustainabiity -- but we won't do that since it is expensive and our society is clearly run by greedy idiots. Can you imagine what going to, say, the full $15 or $20 cost of crude oil with the real impacts factored in -- even if you did it over a decade, would do to the global economy? Maybe once green tech abounds, but that could take 30 years.) The social costs are valid, but I don't see how raving about it at OF2 is the point. If you want to fix it, rave at the evil idiots on Capitol Hill and donate to earth-friendly organizations, for all the good it will do you vs. TPTB and all their money/power.
Recently (I think just after the (speaking of idiots) NYT article distorting the economics of Fracking came out) there was a LOT of rebuttal from informed sources on CNBC and in the MSM.
The industry has strongly objected, and words like Ponzi Scheme were clearly over the top. (Issues - both financial for NG and environmental - clearly; that does NOT equate to Ponzi Scheme).
The fact that companies like Chesapeake Energy are diversifying into more profitable crude drilling to balance the financial interests long term is an example of how there are more alternatives than to defraud everyone. Our on Maddog's mention of Shell Inc. capping proven NG wells and waiting for prices to rise, instead of selling more NG into this depressed market sounds like another very logical alternative.
....
Net - I don't see anything new here. OF2 is right that there is LOTS of oil. I continue (as far as I can see) to be right that although there is lots of oil, getting at the new sources is getting more expensive (including environmental risks) over time -- meaning it doesn't magically solve our problems, but provides a path toward
potential sustainability vs. short term doom.
There have been plenty of industry experts in various MSM sources backing up OF2's basic assertion about plentiful oil shale deposits via fracking or horizontal drilling. Let me guess -- they are ALL scam artists?
How is it that your over-the-top name calling makes you more credible than OF2?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.