Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
I know exactly how professionals debate. And write. And publish. And if you aren't already aware of it, none of those places are HERE.
Largely because of trolls like you you wish to stir up rancor.
One of the prime reasons I choose not to post much these days. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
The Bakken has ALREADY outproduced ANWR. Its been that way for DECADES, and it could possibly stay that way forever.
Not sure what his point is, beings that ANWR can't have been outproduced by Bakken as ANWR has never produced.
The point is you intermingle facts, speculation, assumptions, extrapolations and models and then get all indignant and start calling people names when we notice.
You implied that ANWR is the be all and end all of production compared to the Bakken. As a point of FACT, you have confused 2 different things, an actual producing area and another assembled from one organizations undiscovered technically recoverable estimate ( not producing wells ) and a model which assumes MANY things and comes up with a GUESS at prodution rates.
Then you make this pompous challenge which is incorrect on its face.
MonteQuest wrote:
Or is he saying that the Bakken formation can produce oil at a greater production rate than ANWR could if drilled?
Bakken is easier to get oil than ANWR?
I think not.
So far in this thread, whenever you make that statement, it tends to be negatively correlated with your accuracy. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
You want to act pompous and self righteous at the same time, you better be prepared for people to notice when you are WRONG as well.
Endlessly? Give it a rest, dude.
I wasn't wrong. The numbers were correct.
Look at how you responded with troll crap.
What's wrong with you? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
ANWR oil is easier to produce and at a greater rate than Bakken.
I know of no one, save you, who disputes that fact.
It's ludicrous to assert otherwise.
Why do I bother?
How does one exit from a troll?
Ignore button, I guess. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
I know exactly how professionals debate. And write. And publish. And if you aren't already aware of it, none of those places are HERE.
Largely because of trolls like you you wish to stir up rancor.
One of the prime reasons I choose not to post much these days.
Yeah, getting pasted by reality really interferes with being pompous, don't it?
The AAPG National is in San Antonio next week, stop on in and let the professionals know how smart you are.
The Williston Basin symposium is the week after that. Feel free to do the same there.
I'll give you a heads up though, use any slides with typo's on them or any of the other logical confusion you appear to be inflicted with and I won't be the only one giggling hysterically in the back of the room. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
You implied that ANWR is the be all and end all of production compared to the Bakken. As a point of FACT, you have confused 2 different things, an actual producing area and another assembled from one organizations undiscovered technically recoverable estimate ( not producing wells ) and a model which assumes MANY things and comes up with a GUESS at prodution rates.
I really have no idea why Monte wastes time on people like you, pathetic debunking jerk, You don't really believe Monte doesn't know the difference between ANWAR and Bakken? You st@pid troll.
KTH, you love to harangue people and are trying so hard to act superior and above peak oil. You are a troll.
And you are also completely f*ll of sh&t #sswipe. Monte brought up ANWAR as a compare. Both fields are tragically small in the context of global production and impending decline and will not make a bit of difference on the downslope. He didn't confuse squ@t. 4 BILLION BARRELS WOULD BE USED UP IN 1 1/2 MONTHS. BUT THEN THOSE BARRELS ARE EMBEDDED IN A BAKED CERAMIC SHALE PLATE THAT WILL PRODUCE PATHETICALLY SLOW AND AT GREAT COST.
KillTheHumans wrote:
Then you make this pompous challenge which is incorrect on its face.
MonteQuest wrote:
Or is he saying that the Bakken formation can produce oil at a greater production rate than ANWR could if drilled?
Bakken is easier to get oil than ANWR?
I think not.
So far in this thread, whenever you make that statement, it tends to be negatively correlated with your accuracy.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
yesplease wrote:
So you're using a figure you doubt? Why not spend a few seconds or minutes searching the interwebs for more realistic figures that you don't doubt?
I doubt we will ever be able to consume 30 mbpd, but I don't doubt that US oil imports will increase. Largely because I don't see domestic production being able to offset decline, nor the biofuels increase ever being reality.
Running the projection numbers shows how little ANWR would help. The numbers are a moving target and of little consequence in the big picture. We cannot drill our way out of this.
Barring a major economic downturn, which makes all this moot, I see consumption continuing to rise as long as there is any growth in GDP. Decline will eclipse efficieincy gains.
Everyone knows EOR increases the decline rate and that is much of what we are counting on. An it will get much worse if we cannot increasse imports due to unavailability from OPEC. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
What's wrong with you?
I react without humor when confronted by incompetence, inaccuracies and silly speculation.
Notice how well this thread was going until YOU showed up?
How this thread was going. It was started as a report of a a particular unconventional formation promoted to contain 4.1 and 12.4 billion barrels of very tight oil. Not very important.
And then you an another techtopian jumped in to claim that the whole thing really had hundreds of billions of barrels. A small coterie of debunking techtopian fools out to disprove peak oil.
You were completely discredited when judgement day arrived. You have spent and wasted others time ever since defending your stupid prognosis.
give it up and go home. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
ANWR oil is easier to produce and at a greater rate than Bakken.
I know of no one, save you, who disputes that fact.
It's ludicrous to assert otherwise.
Here we go again.
Tell us Monte, the oil assessed by the USGS report you keep using, what is its API gravity? And where does its "greater rate" arrive? Is it pumped through the Alaskan pipeline like Prudhoe Bay oil? Which operator is reponsible for pumping it out of the ground? How much does it contibute, do you think, to the State of Alaska general fund? Is it sweet or sour crude?
Considering your statement on how easy to produce it is, you must have some information on a few of these small, basic details related to the production of this oil, right? _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
Every since OilFinder came up with his ridiculous prognosis this particular thread has enter the stratosphere of undocumented unwarrented optimism and denial
OF wrote:
The 200-500 billion barrel figures being bandied about for the Bakken are total oil-in-place figures, not recoverable. The recoverable figure is more likely to be something like 100 billion barrels, but until the USGS report comes out next month, that's just guesswork.
The claims for hundreds of millions of barrels were pumped and then dumped when USGS actually made their estimate. A piddling 4 billion.
The pumpers and dumpers are wrong. We remain forever out of oil. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
Go read what the physicist wrote. I'm as confused as him when you pretend physics applies to economics.
I never said it did. That's in your head.
You cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into it.
I'm not talking about an "economic" system, I'm talking about making things. Energy in, product out. No energy in, no product out.
Growing GDP by reselling the same already made product; i.e. asset inflation is over.
Now we will have to produce real goods and services to grow the economy which will take energy to do so.
Sure, you can find some instances of GDP growth where little new energy is used, but for the most part, that is not the case. And the most part is what counts. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
Tell us Monte, the oil assessed by the USGS report you keep using, what is its API gravity? And where does its "greater rate" arrive? Is it pumped through the Alaskan pipeline like Prudhoe Bay oil? Which operator is reponsible for pumping it out of the ground? How much does it contibute, do you think, to the State of Alaska general fund? Is it sweet or sour crude?
Considering your statement on how easy to produce it is, you must have some information on a few of these small, basic details related to the production of this oil, right?
Is it easier to drill in Texas or in the deep waters of the gulf?
Texas.
And I don't need to explain why to anyone who understands the basics.
Same thing applies to ANWR versus Bakken.
EROEI. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
pstarr wrote:
You don't really believe Monte doesn't know the difference between ANWAR and Bakken? You st@pid troll.
He's already proven he knows nothing about the DIFFERENCES between the Bakken and ANWR. He apparently exists in an alternate reality where ANWR oil has been discovered, drilled for, produced, piped, refined and is directly comparable to the Bakken which ACTUALLY has been discovered, drilled, produced, piped, refined and used in someone's gas tank.
You got a beef with facts, don't point your bad attitude in my direction.
pstarr wrote:
And you are also completely f*ll of sh&t #sswipe. Monte brought up ANWAR as a compare.
Then perhaps you can answer some of the basic questions I just asked him about its production characteristics? Shouldn't be hard, if its a valid comparison. Hop to it.
pstarr wrote:
Both fields are tragically small in the context of global production and impending decline and will not make a bit of difference on the downslope.
So now you are going to demonstrate the same incompetence he has been? Go back and read what he wrote Peter, ANWR isn't a field. It hasn't been discovered. It has no size. The Bakken has all of these things. We were having a decent discussion in here about REAL things, how is it we've now inherited TWO incompetents?
pstarr wrote:
He didn't confuse squ@t. 4 BILLION BARRELS WOULD BE USED UP IN 1 1/2 MONTHS. BUT THEN THOSE BARRELS ARE EMBEDDED IN A BAKED CERAMIC SHALE PLATE THAT WILL PRODUCE PATHETICALLY SLOW AND AT GREAT COST.
Please don't pretend to know something at this point, you're already heading down the wrong path and it'll be just as obvious as it has been with Monte how poorly you have been paying attention to what the adults are talking about.
The Bakken isn't ceramic, no one except you thinks the IP's of Bakken wells are "pathetically slow" and the cost isn't great compared to 20,000' in the GOM. Anything else you are suffering terminal confusion over?
pstarr wrote:
Quote:
So far in this thread, whenever you make that statement, it tends to be negatively correlated with your accuracy.
oh sh*t up.
Thats the best you can come up with when someone else is right? There is a valid topic in place here. It isn't about ceramic tile or whatever else you wish to confuse the Bakken shale with. Unless you happen to be heading to AAPG? There is undoubtedly going to be talks and posters there related to this topic....go read one...learn something..report back. I'll do the Williston Basin symposium, and people here have already given me questions to pester people with.
Otherwise, go back to playing in the open forum or something where you aren't actually required to KNOW something before getting involved. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
