Of the two of us you have been posting inaccuracies regarding the report:
This was wrong.
As was this.
As was this.
I have been up front about the content and just recently brought up the technology advances driving some of the projections. And called out the value of the report even absent these advances.
Meanwhile we have undefined statements like this from you to compare:
“Industrial scale”
“Massive subsidies”
It would be helpful to counter specific numbers or provide your own. Then we can temper our interpretation of the report with your inputs.
I haven’t posted anything inaccurate about the report, there are no actual facts in the report to misrepresent.
It’s supposition, hopes, dreams and little more than agenda driven propaganda.
There are no hard figures or existing tech to base their predictions on for what things will actually look like 10-20 years out.
I just posted three statements you made about the report that are inaccurate.
This current statement is also inaccurate. Although the report has projections, it also has current data and numerous other non-green, non-prospective content based on hard current data.
You want to stretch the undisputed fact that the report contains projections into the case that every aspect of the report is fact less. (including what is says has gone into the projections)
I see this is the line you have drawn and I will respect it. But weak sauce for a discussion or debate.
I know of someone who would say this is just hopes and dreams and supposition.
That until that oil is pumped into barrels and measured this is just fantasy.
I don’t consider projections that way and take this news as a positive sign that oil production has some years left in it.
No you don’t since we can actually see the volume of the field with seismic technology.
The irony of the EIA putting out oil projections … that you accept is lost on you.
There is no facts in these projections… they use estimates of future oil prices and developments in extraction technologies to classify the reserves.
No facts. No facts. Hopes and dreams.
Look into how much of your current understanding of these issues is informed by or reinforced by reports put out by the EIA. Tainted with their fact free modeling and projections. Not to mention the USGA and that hopeful fact free interpretation of seismic data to pull a number out of thin air… and the supposition it is oil! And the fantasy that extraction technology will advance so we can capture it.
I’m sorry. I get that you are hopeful about these reserves, but totally fact free. Nothing for me to even refute about them. No facts. Supposition. Promised advancements.
I couldn’t even say an inacvurate thing about them. Fact free
/sarcasm
Projections are based on possible production numbers, not actual known reserves in the ground.
This is apparently a field you know very little about.
Projections. “Possible”. Guesses on below ground. Plain supposition. Fact free.
You should really read those reports!
Or better yet link to the reports that said this so I can read them.
Now you’re just making things up.
We can actually measure the volume of a field with seismic technology, both the size and density of the formations.
Guesses. Estimation of how much can be extracted. Fact free. Hopes and dreams.
I’m beginning to see the wide disconnect you have between facts and guesses.
That explains a whole lot.
This is the level of discourse that you provided in response to the reports you don’t like.
Kinda comes off as uninformed and brash don’t it.
I never made anything up.
These are actual measurements made with proven tech, not pie in the sky projections relying on tech that hasn’t been invented yet or that is too expensive to make it competitive.
Of course you did. Actual measurements are not guesses.
Estimates. Projections made from measurements. Who knows what are consumption will be for the next hundred years.
Fact free. Hope and fantasy. No facts.
Unless they put that oil in a barrel and sold it over 100 years and watched it satisfy our consumption. It is a projection, a guess that it will last this long.
Fact free. Hopes and dreams. Fantasies.
And you just continue on.
We have over a hundred years of data to base those projections on and no actual data to base the projections on made in the article you cited based on tech that hasn’t even been invented or is unaffordable to make them practical.
Did they put those in the “lasts a hundred years” device to make that measurement.
Pure supposition. Guesses.
Yep. Guesses. Not facts. Fact free. No facts to even refute.
