# The Real Deal on Brazil



## boedicca

Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.   

Let's look at Brazil's Energy Policy:

_Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.

*The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.*_

Stephen Hayward: The Secret to Brazil's Energy Success - WSJ.com


If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?


----------



## Douger

Because Brazil has something your masters want.Monsanto needs more farmland and Brazil has it. Simple isn't it. If Brazil doesn't like the way Dupont-Monsanto takes advantage of them and destroys what is left of the rest of their country they have a plan for that too. Blackwater/XE which they recently purchased.
Don't forgit to sing that thar Gawd Blass murka on your way home from work.


----------



## JiggsCasey

boedicca said:


> If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?



Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?

Houston Chronicle: Report says oil supplies in Fla. waters negligible - Offshore Oil Drilling


----------



## editec

You have been misinformed, Boed.



The_ Export-Import Bank_ approved loans  to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.


*Obama had nothing to do with it.*


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?
Click to expand...


Incorrect. From you (or peak oil cultists in general) this is not a surprise. The amount of estimated oil remaining in the GOM according to Gorelick is quite substantial.

You won't hear this from peak oil cultists however, primarily because they are energy incompetents. Like Jiggsy. Go ahead, determine it for yourself, just ask him any question about the industry and see how fast he cuts and pastes someone else's answer...he isn't capable of generating one on his own.


----------



## Mr. H.

Obama has no confidence in _us_ (read: U.S.). He doesn't view our country as a community.
He does not instill a sense of self-worth. He gives no purpose or direction. 

We are leaderless.


----------



## Care4all

editec said:


> You have been misinformed, Boed.
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Export-Import Bank_ approved loans  to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.
> 
> 
> *Obama had nothing to do with it.*



ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...

we have had a thread on this already.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because our waters have been scoured for decades, and the minuscule proven reserves here are not worth the infrastructure nor environmental risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. From you (or peak oil cultists in general) this is not a surprise. The amount of estimated oil remaining in the GOM according to Gorelick is quite substantial.
> 
> You won't hear this from peak oil cultists however, primarily because they are energy incompetents. Like Jiggsy. Go ahead, determine it for yourself, just ask him any question about the industry and see how fast he cuts and pastes someone else's answer...he isn't capable of generating one on his own.
Click to expand...


Poetic irony. 

At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.

You're such an unrivalled asshole. LOL. And what a good little loyal globalist you are, carrying water for all things "infinite growth." What a tool.

"Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.

Man-up and present some *proven *reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick". You know, like you fail to do time and time again every time you engage me on the topic. Shock me, for once. Rather than punt to hollow personal insinuation that does ZERO for your argument, do the work. How is the Florida Senate study "wrong?" Let me guess: It doesn't factor "shale gas?" ...  lol-tastic.

God, do you ever suck at this, "industry insider."


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.



You cannot support your opinion. All you can do is provide a link to someone else saying something, you do not have the ability to judge its validity in the least. Parrots only fool fools into thinking that they understand the words they use.

I supplied a reference name...I did not expect you to catch it in your lunge for name calling as a substitute for thought. 



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> "Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.



Go back and find the name I dropped. If you can, I will then provide the page in his book which references "quite substantial" estimates. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Man-up and present some *proven *reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick".



I certainly didn't say anything about reserve numbers, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to know anything about them or the differences among the various categories. Go see the above paragraph related to the disadvantages of being a parrot.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> God, do you ever suck at this, "industry insider."



I've already mentioned that I'm not in industry anymore. You should try out this thing called "reading comprehension", it would help you from making all these factual errors you are so fond of.


----------



## Trajan

Care4all said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been misinformed, Boed.
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Export-Import Bank_ approved loans  to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.
> 
> 
> *Obama had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...
> 
> we have had a thread on this already.
Click to expand...


however, I seethe  issues at stake and worth discussion in the article are;

Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.

The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I support my opinion. You just troll and spew vague assertion backed by nothingness, while pretending you're smarter than petrol geologists, energy analysts, chief economists, and anyone else who doesn't deep-throat the consumption paradigm you all lube up and masturbate to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot support your opinion. All you can do is provide a link to someone else saying something, you do not have the ability to judge its validity in the least. Parrots only fool fools into thinking that they understand the words they use.
> 
> I supplied a reference name...I did not expect you to catch it in your lunge for name calling as a substitute for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggscasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quite substantial?" WTF does that mean? Way to expose yourself with a figure, coward. Estimated reserves don't mean shit. I have little doubt you know this, but you're promoting more willful fraud, per usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and find the name I dropped. If you can, I will then provide the page in his book which references "quite substantial" estimates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man-up and present some *proven *reserve figures, then, "arrogant prick".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly didn't say anything about reserve numbers, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to know anything about them or the differences among the various categories. Go see the above paragraph related to the disadvantages of being a parrot.
> 
> I've already mentioned that I'm not in industry anymore. You should try out this thing called "reading comprehension", it would help you from making all these factual errors you are so fond of.
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension? From you? That's some stunning irony. Your strategy is: When backed into a corner, delay and keep them busy with subterfuge. Tool.

Your perpetual scavenger hunt isn't stalling for you any longer. It's very easy for you to just provide the figures when  challenged to do so. But you're unable to support your hollow claim. Your endless aversion to ever meet direct and clear challenges indicate you don't have any idea what you're talking about, you unabashed fossil fuel industry drone. What is "Quite Substantial" that you're trying to pass off in this latest line of oil fraud? 

"Quite substantial" indeed. Keep dancing, coward.

Supporting a claim on message forums means linking to people in the industry, or those who endorse studies conducted by people in the industry. You understand how this works, don't you forum fraud? When you read a newspaper piece, you ARE able to tell the difference between news and opinion, right? Or you so fucking Fox Newsed that you can no longer tell the difference?

I meet debate standards. You run from them. And you hate the fact that you can't fool anyone here with your double-talk and goofy rationale. That's because you've been exposed many months ago, when you obviously joined here to pretend there's "plenty of oil." LOL!!

All you have in your lame arsenal is spin, straw man creation, and a Saudi-Aramco executive who punts to "technology" and nothing more.

My gawd, do you EVER suck at this.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Reading comprehension? From you? That's some stunning irony. Your strategy is: When backed into a corner, delay and keep them busy with subterfuge. Tool.



So far I have answered at a level of detail you are not capable of responding to, on your favorite oil report. And I offered to provide the page number from a given author that you might review how much the GOM has yet to offer. 

Either you ignore the hints I try and provide because you are as ignorant as you appear, or you do not wish to actually understand the information involved.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I meet debate standards.



Well, if nothing else you have certainly provided the largest belly laugh I have had all day. Thank you.


----------



## JiggsCasey

In other words, you can't link to support your claim. 

Is it Steven Gorelick? Jamie Gorelick? What is the problem here for you? Sure seems like you're hoping to slink out of this latest direct challenge by pretending it's up to me to do YOUR work after you snuck in some "name dropping." LOL...   Your pretentious posting style remains ever present.

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.

Once more, for accountability, you made another baseless, vague claim that the Gulf contains ESTIMATED reserve totals that are "quite substantial." And yet, when challenged to back up your work, you mention someone named "Gorelick" and flat REFUSE to link to what you're talking about.

I know you're taking a beating lately, so if this is your white flag moment, just say so.


----------



## HUGGY

boedicca said:


> Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and *handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.   *
> 
> Let's look at Brazil's Energy Policy:
> 
> _Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.
> 
> *The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.*_
> 
> Stephen Hayward: The Secret to Brazil's Energy Success - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?



Really??....  Just how exactly does Obama personally make billions in loans to Brazil or anyone?

This sounds like a Glenn Beck rant on bad acid.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> 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.

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 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?



			
				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.



			
				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. 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.....


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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:



RGR said:


> 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.



RGR said:


> 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.



RGR said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


And yet, of all the references you could have picked, you chose that fatally flawed one from Geotimes. 



RGR said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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.



RGR said:


> 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?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> 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.



No one here assumes you are capable of using google, know what a footnote is, or can think, because you consistently prove it. 

And only a sophomoric twit would ever think that LINKS are required, if you can't look up scientific references for yourself, go get a liberry card and learn how to use it.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> 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.



Are you really so ignorant to not know what a footnote is?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that's a few too many "might be as much as" and "unconventional recovery methods" for one sentence.



Unfortunate for you perhaps, but the statement in the peer reviewed research covers my original claim of your seemingly natural ignorance quite well. It is quite obvious, at least to everyone who reads our conversations, that you have an agenda to present only information from peaker dogma.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> 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!"



Please provide reference showing that Gorelick is a plenty of oil proponent. His position in the book I referenced certainly covered the peaker religious angle quite well.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> 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.



I never said any such thing. So now we can add the memory of a gnat to your talents.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> 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."_



So now you are parroting blogs in an attempt to elevate their technical analysis to the level of published research? Don't you have a utube video of a 2nd grader discrediting the research, that would have just as much weight on this topic.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> And yet, of all the references you could have picked, you chose that fatally flawed one from Geotimes.



Fatally flawed? Because a poster at TOD said so? I am curious now, do you know what a peer reviewed science journal is, where you can read one, and why they matter, when compared to utube talking head videos and bloggers? Why don't you just quote yourself claiming that everything you don't believe is bogus, it would conceal your inability to think for yourself and maximize your cutting and pasting skills.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> 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.



I'm not the one who can't figure out that trading 5 for 2 is a great way for me to get rich, and you to demonstrate why you are a parrot without the ability to think for yourself. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Oh wait. By presenting, you just meant presenting name tags at the door?



Oh please. Why don't you come on down and bring along some utube videos? Maybe a copy of Deffeyes' book, with some highlighted passages you can read from, thereby minimizing the number of times you mess up all those multi-syllable words? For God's sake, just don't try and ad-lib, you suck when you go off the script the peakers spoon feed you.


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR;

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."
.................................................................................................................

Couple of red flags there, RGR. How much more spills can the Gulf take before we see a major impact that wil severely affect it's ability to supply food to us?


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> RGR;
> 
> 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."
> .................................................................................................................
> 
> Couple of red flags there, RGR.



Absolutely Rocks. Someone with functioning neurons, such as yourself, can read what I presented and then we have a conversation around the connotations in "might", there not being much dispute over unconventional production techniques and their effectiveness.

And then we would discuss what part of that trillion "might" be useful to society.

Jiggsy doesn't understand any of this of course, his dogma does not allow it. 



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		

> How much more spills can the Gulf take before we see a major impact that wil severely affect it's ability to supply food to us?



Don't know. The Gulf has suffered two of the largest oil spills in North America in the past 35 years. Certainly the effects of both of those spills were not neglible, but neither did they destroy the Gulf or its ability to supply food.

Do we have any ecologists who frequent this forum we could ask?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Oh please. Why don't you come on down and bring along some utube videos? Maybe a copy of Deffeyes' book, with some highlighted passages you can read from, thereby minimizing the number of times you mess up all those multi-syllable words? For God's sake, just don't try and ad-lib, you suck when you go off the script the peakers spoon feed you.



LOL. You're such a flailing cauldron of fail at this point. Like a lobster dumped in a bubbling pot. Caught leaning on the 8-year-old prose of an abiotic oil theorist for what _might _be under the GoM. A claim uncorroborated by much of anyone for 7 years, until your hero Steven Gorelick picked up the trail. Abiotic flappers everywhere rejoice!

Don't swallow too hard, denialist _parrot_. Discerning ears might be listening while you're "presenting."






*IMF warns oil growing scarce, more costly - Yahoo! News
*
Oops. The International Monetary Fund now? That's gonna leave a mark.

Don't think of this story while you're up there. Think of happy thoughts, and shale gas.

Gosh, who's next? Will the rest hold firm, now that the first pillar of global empire has acknowledged peak is here?...  The World Bank? USAID? Exxon-Mobil? ... The Pengaton? (oh wait, it already did last year.)

Quick! Ruffle through your Steven Gorelick bible and find that passage on how the IMF is lying. How it's part of the great conspiracy to artificially inflate global oil price. Surely he covered that angle.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Why don't you come on down and bring along some utube videos? Maybe a copy of Deffeyes' book, with some highlighted passages you can read from, thereby minimizing the number of times you mess up all those multi-syllable words? For God's sake, just don't try and ad-lib, you suck when you go off the script the peakers spoon feed you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You're such a flailing cauldron of fail at this point.
Click to expand...


Keep saying it...then you can parrot yourself while convincing yourself it must be true.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Don't swallow too hard, denialist _parrot_. Discerning ears might be listening while you're "presenting."



I present to discerning ears, between which lie functioning neurons. That is a key difference between my audiences and those from whom you derive cutting and pasting material.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Oops. The International Monetary Fund now? That's gonna leave a mark.



So you think parroting the IMF is good? Secretary of the Interior, Ickes, in 1941 was warning the President we didn't have enough oil to run the war. Wrote an article on it in 1943. "Running Out of Oil". So predicting how this stuff is disappearing was going on before you were born, any reason you suddenly noticed? Poor attention span to go with your failing memory? Straighten out your panties already and give the parroting a break.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Quick! Ruffle through your Steven Gorelick bible and find that passage on how the IMF is lying. How it's part of the great conspiracy to artificially inflate global oil price. Surely he covered that angle.



Gorelick provides footnotes, the Bible doesn't. You would know this if you had actually read a little of either. And the real price of oil today is about the same as it was in 1864 during the Civil War....you have a problem with oil prices that your great great grand parents were perfectly capable of dealing with, or do we just chalk this up to your bad memory and parroting abilities? As usual?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Keep saying it...then you can parrot yourself while convincing yourself it must be true.



The irony is precious. No one rehashed the same material here, post after post, more than goofy you. And no one works backwards from their conclusions as does you.



RGR said:


> I present to discerning ears, between which lie functioning neurons. That is a key difference between my audiences and those from whom you derive cutting and pasting material.



So it'll be a symposium full of abiotic cultists then? I'm sure you'll be applauded. Just as sure as you are that all those super-giant fields will magically fill themselves back up. LOL.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. The International Monetary Fund now? That's gonna leave a mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think parroting the IMF is good?
Click to expand...


No, pumpkin. I think backing up my claims -- with corroborative assertion from entities and governing bodies far more influential than you or I combined -- is good.  Get it yet? 

You seem to have a real problem with that debate strategy, you know, sourcing one's claims. Almost threatened by it. So much so that you appear to prefer opinion rant to hard news. Lie to yourself all you like, "industry insider," but your arrogant aversion to backing up claims reflects far more poorly on you, and not at all on me. 

kthxbai!



RGR said:


> Secretary of the Interior, Ickes, in 1941 was warning the President we didn't have enough oil to run the war. Wrote an article on it in 1943. "Running Out of Oil". So predicting how this stuff is disappearing was going on before you were born, any reason you suddenly noticed? Poor attention span to go with your failing memory? Straighten out your panties already and give the parroting a break.



Your apples to oranges allegory of 70 years ago does not refute the modern day verdict. Oops, sorry. I know that twists your bra and all, but this latest example of fail 70 years ago is not remotely as significant. This is assuming Ickes was even claiming overall peak in the first place. Perhaps he was just referring to war restraints, or short term production roadblocks.

Meanwhile, the IMF admitting *today *"global supply constraints" and "no return to supply growth" and "nations should brace themselves" because of it.  ... Yeah, kind of a big deal. 

Keep creating straw men, and arguing with them.  It's all you have at this point.

that, and probably a whole gang of bad investments that you're trying to rationalize to yourself. LOL



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick! Ruffle through your Steven Gorelick bible and find that passage on how the IMF is lying. How it's part of the great conspiracy to artificially inflate global oil price. Surely he covered that angle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gorelick provides footnotes, the Bible doesn't. You would know this if you had actually read a little of either. And the real price of oil today is about the same as it was in 1864 during the Civil War....you have a problem with oil prices that your great great grand parents were perfectly capable of dealing with, or do we just chalk this up to your bad memory and parroting abilities? As usual?
Click to expand...


Gorelick's book gets laughed at at ToD and ASPO, and probably the IEA. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, sunshine. It's now clear that we have identified the lone source for all your pablum, and that your talking points come from this turd of a book.

His book does not attempt to be scientific, offers little-to-no research of his own, and relies on logical fallacies like this beauty:

_"The world has never run out of any significant globally traded, non-renewable Earth resource."​_
Your hero wrote the...

"Worst Book on Oil Crisis Written Yet "

_A scientist should dig deep and try to come up with a model or theory that would confirm or rebut the empirical evidence. You just don't rely on tired worn-out assertions (the world has never run out of a resource, predictions have not come true, etc) from the cornucopian right, put them in a book and consider this an advancement of knowledge._​


----------



## CaféAuLait

Care4all said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been misinformed, Boed.
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Export-Import Bank_ approved loans  to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.
> 
> 
> *Obama had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...
> 
> we have had a thread on this already.
Click to expand...



Where did the Bush admin approve the loans, the only thing I ever saw was they approved the receipt of conceptual plans for drilling:



> Rio de Janeiro, December 11, 2006). - PETRÓLEO BRASILEIRO S/A - PETROBRAS, [Bovespa: PETR3/PETR4, NYSE: PBR/PBRA, Latibex: XPBR/XPBRA, BCBA: APBR/APBRA], a Brazilian international energy company, announces that, its Conceptual Plan for the subsea development of Cascade and Chinook fields has received approval from the United States Minerals Management Service (MMS). It is the first approval at this level of a plan that includes the deployment of a Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility in the Gulf of Mexico. MMS is an agency of the United States Government that manages the natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS). [Petrobras's Investor Relations Department, *12/11/06*]



Beck, Limbaugh Renew Smear That Obama Is Undermining U.S. With Petrobras Drilling Permits | Media Matters for America



> NEW ORLEANS - The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) today provided the final approval necessary for Petrobras America, Inc. to begin oil and natural gas production at its Cascade-Chinook project using a Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO) facility. This will be the first time this technology is used in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. BOEMRE approved the project's Production Safety System permit and Supplemental Deepwater Operating Plan (DWOP), to ensure that stringent safety regulations were met. The FPSO has a production capacity of 80,000 barrels of oil per day and 16 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. With the completion of this final regulatory step, production from this facility is expected to begin in the near future. [BOEMRE,* 3/17/11*]





Beck, Limbaugh Renew Smear That Obama Is Undermining U.S. With Petrobras Drilling Permits | Media Matters for America




> Petrobras' Cascade-Chinook Project - Walker Ridge 206 and 469
> 
> Petrobras submitted the initial DOCD on November 28, 2007.  The proposed project uses an FPSO to store oil, with any natural gas processed transported to shore by pipeline.  Petrobras' FPSO is equipped with a disconnectable turret so that in the event of a hurricane or tropical storm, the facility can disconnect from the turret and move off location until the storm has passed.
> 
> In April of 2008, the then-MMS approved Petrobras' Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) for the project after a thorough environmental and technical review.  The analysis of the site-specific EIS resulted in the then-MMS issuing a "Finding of No Significant Impact," *allowing the project to continue the development process*. (See Minerals Management Service Approves Development Plans for First Use of Floating Production Storage Offloading Facility in Gulf of Mexico )
> 
> *In August of 2009*, then-MMS approved Petrobras' initial Deepwater Operating Plan.
> 
> In March of 2011, BOEMRE approved the Supplemental DWOP and Production Safety System permit allowing Petrobras to begin production at Cascade-Chinook from the FPSO, B.W. Pioneer.  (See Press Release) [BOEMRE, accessed 3/18/11]




Beck, Limbaugh Renew Smear That Obama Is Undermining U.S. With Petrobras Drilling Permits | Media Matters for America


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Gorelick's book gets laughed at at ToD and ASPO, and probably the IEA.



Well, when the bloggers at TOD write one as well referenced, I guess I will judge their opinion based on that. Until then, they aren't any more qualified than our local parrot to comment I imagine. ASPO is different of course....the Godfather and Founder of ASPO declared peak oil in 1990 or so....do you still think that qualifies them as experts on the topic? How did peak oil in 1990 go for you?

And you don't really want to quote WHT's opinion on the book, the poor guy doesn't know what oil is any better than you do.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorelick's book gets laughed at at ToD and ASPO, and probably the IEA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when the bloggers at TOD write one as well referenced, I guess I will judge their opinion based on that. Until then, they aren't any more qualified than our local parrot to comment I imagine. ASPO is different of course....the Godfather and Founder of ASPO declared peak oil in 1990 or so....do you still think that qualifies them as experts on the topic? How did peak oil in 1990 go for you?
> 
> And you don't really want to quote WHT's opinion on the book, the poor guy doesn't know what oil is any better than you do.
Click to expand...


link to the 1990 claim, or STFU.

Either way, I'd say that made him merely 14 years early.  

Your white flag is accepted, btw. Good luck in your "presentation." Breathe, and drink water.


----------



## editec

boedicca said:


> Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.


 
When a thread STARTS OUT with misinformation, (as this one is doing) everything that follows, however logical, is crap.

GIGO, Boed.

I'm sure you're familiar with the term.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorelick's book gets laughed at at ToD and ASPO, and probably the IEA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when the bloggers at TOD write one as well referenced, I guess I will judge their opinion based on that. Until then, they aren't any more qualified than our local parrot to comment I imagine. ASPO is different of course....the Godfather and Founder of ASPO declared peak oil in 1990 or so....do you still think that qualifies them as experts on the topic? How did peak oil in 1990 go for you?
> 
> And you don't really want to quote WHT's opinion on the book, the poor guy doesn't know what oil is any better than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link to the 1990 claim, or STFU.
Click to expand...


No. Your ignorance of Colins claim, or even the ability to understand what footnotes are for, is not my limitation. It's yours.

My statement is one of fact. Your ignorance of it indicates exactly what I've been saying...you don't even know the history of your OWN religion.

Why does your religion withhold this information from its parrots?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

This is a despicable & blatant Anti-American policy. It's a very bizarre policy even for a Lefty Winger. Him and his followers love to sit around whining about American Oil Companies being "Evil" yet apparently they have no problem with Brazilian Oil Companies. That's such a flawed ignorant way of looking at things. We should not be giving Brazil American Tax Dollars so they can drill for Oil. This stuff makes no sense. Meanwhile Gas Prices are skyrocketing. They could reach $5 by Summer. $5 Gas will be catastrophic for the Economy. Man,2012 can't come fast enough. Time for the Dems to go.


----------



## High_Gravity

LibocalypseNow said:


> This is a despicable & blatant Anti-American policy. It's a very bizarre policy even for a Lefty Winger. Him and his followers love to sit around whining about American Oil Companies being "Evil" yet apparently they have no problem with Brazilian Oil Companies. That's such a flawed ignorant way of looking at things. We should not be giving Brazil American Tax Dollars so they can drill for Oil. This stuff makes no sense. Meanwhile Gas Prices are skyrocketing. They could reach $5 by Summer. $5 Gas will be catastrophic for the Economy. Man,2012 can't come fast enough. Time for the Dems to go.



What is the benefits for the US for helping Brazilian oil companies?


----------



## HUGGY

High_Gravity said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a despicable & blatant Anti-American policy. It's a very bizarre policy even for a Lefty Winger. Him and his followers love to sit around whining about American Oil Companies being "Evil" yet apparently they have no problem with Brazilian Oil Companies. That's such a flawed ignorant way of looking at things. We should not be giving Brazil American Tax Dollars so they can drill for Oil. This stuff makes no sense. Meanwhile Gas Prices are skyrocketing. They could reach $5 by Summer. $5 Gas will be catastrophic for the Economy. Man,2012 can't come fast enough. Time for the Dems to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefits for the US for helping Brazilian oil companies?
Click to expand...


Pardon my intrusion into this debate but I believe "encouragement" into Brazil's exploring alternate sources of energy should be augmented by production of carbon based fuel to help sustain the transition.  In Brazil as here it isn't an all or nothing game.  South America is becoming a much needed trading partner with the U S in that they have natural resources and an emerging agricultural line of commodities that we can take advantage of.  The fact that they are opposite us in seasons is no small consequence in this bigger picture.  I would much rather have and support South American trade than that with China which shares and competes within the same climate.  Also China is in competition with us on energy resources.  The efforts of Brazil to become energy independent makes them a better bet for non competition in that sector.


----------



## High_Gravity

HUGGY said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a despicable & blatant Anti-American policy. It's a very bizarre policy even for a Lefty Winger. Him and his followers love to sit around whining about American Oil Companies being "Evil" yet apparently they have no problem with Brazilian Oil Companies. That's such a flawed ignorant way of looking at things. We should not be giving Brazil American Tax Dollars so they can drill for Oil. This stuff makes no sense. Meanwhile Gas Prices are skyrocketing. They could reach $5 by Summer. $5 Gas will be catastrophic for the Economy. Man,2012 can't come fast enough. Time for the Dems to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefits for the US for helping Brazilian oil companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon my intrusion into this debate but I believe "encouragement" into Brazil's exploring alternate sources of energy should be augmented by production of carbon based fuel to help sustain the transition.  In Brazil as here it isn't an all or nothing game.  South America is becoming a much needed trading partner with the U S in that they have natural resources and an emerging agricultural line of commodities that we can take advantage of.  The fact that they are opposite us in seasons is no small consequence in this bigger picture.  I would much rather have and support South American trade than that with China which shares and competes within the same climate.  Also China is in competition with us on energy resources.  The efforts of Brazil to become energy independent makes them a better bet for non competition in that sector.
Click to expand...


Ok I can see your point, I would like to see us come up with an alternative to Middle Eastern Oil here at home, these gas prices are breaking the back of the average and lower class American.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Gotta demonize those bad American Oil Companies but lets give Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in Taxpayer cash so they can drill for Oil? Yea that makes absolutely no sense at all. This Administration is lost.


----------



## HUGGY

LibocalypseNow said:


> Gotta demonize those bad American Oil Companies but lets give Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in Taxpayer cash so they can drill for Oil? Yea that makes absolutely no sense at all. This Administration is lost.



The major oil companies have done a fine job demonizing themselves.  Exxon...BP...colluding with oil speculators to drive up the price of crude and the systematic problems with refining that seems a little too convenient to tap our wallets at the pump.

I don't recall any Brazilian oil company crashing a tanker or trashing the Gulf or manipulating oil prices to rape the American public at the retail level.  What I saw was Venezuela offering to subsidize heating oil costs for the poor of our country and Bush preventing that good will effort.  

Sorry Collapse...  Crocodile tears for the Multinational rapers of the worlds resources and those that depend on them will not float your boat.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

No American Tax Dollars should be given to Brazilian Oil Companies to drill for Oil. And no American Tax Dollars should be given to American Oil Companies either. But at least with American Oil Companies,you get some American Jobs out of it. Outsourcing and giving American Tax Dollars for foreign Oil Drilling is not the answer.


----------



## High_Gravity

LibocalypseNow said:


> No American Tax Dollars should be given to Brazilian Oil Companies to drill for Oil. And no American Tax Dollars should be given to American Oil Companies either. But at least with American Oil Companies,you get some American Jobs out of it. Outsourcing and giving American Tax Dollars for foreign Oil Drilling is not the answer.



I would like to see Obama pledge a few billion dollars to an AMERICAN company that can produce jobs and benefits for us here at home, is that possible or is all the money going to countries that hate us like Pakistan and Iraq?


----------



## HUGGY

High_Gravity said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No American Tax Dollars should be given to Brazilian Oil Companies to drill for Oil. And no American Tax Dollars should be given to American Oil Companies either. But at least with American Oil Companies,you get some American Jobs out of it. Outsourcing and giving American Tax Dollars for foreign Oil Drilling is not the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see Obama pledge a few billion dollars to an AMERICAN company that can produce jobs and benefits for us here at home, is that possible or is all the money going to countries that hate us like Pakistan and Iraq?
Click to expand...


As much as some would like to attribute God-like powers to Obama ...he is in the final analysis just a man with a family.  JFK had a family and so did that senator whatizname.  

With trillions at stake no doubt Obama had reality "splained" to him a long time ago.  No president is immune to the wishes of these people. The comical way you guys scream at puppets is quaint! ... and amusing.    

The only differences I see among Clinton, Bush and Obama is that Obama is the only one that even gives lip service to his reluctance to cave in to the demands of the true "leaders" of our country.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Lets create more American Jobs,not more Brazilian Jobs. Just a suggestion anyway.


----------



## High_Gravity

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lets create more American Jobs,not more Brazilian Jobs. Just a suggestion anyway.


----------



## HUGGY

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lets create more American Jobs,not more Brazilian Jobs. Just a suggestion anyway.



AND a damn good one it is.  What is constantly missing from THAT discussion is what REALLY creates jobs.  It is a demand for products.  The Ford Motor company is one of the best models for job creation.  Henry Fords mission statement..if he had one was to produce a product that his own employees could afford and want.  Unfortunately most of the products that our people need and can afford are not made in the USA any more.  The good news is that what is produced for us are trinkets..devices to entertain us and take up our time.  The only avenue that makes any sense is the manufacture of alternative energy devices because that is an undeniable future.  The resistance to that reality is astonishing.  No major industry has come along without bumps and starts but the powers with the death grip on our energy needs have sabotaged every attempt to gain ground in that direction.  The problem is to big for any independent operation.  The market is still too weak.  The eventuality is undeniable though so it is ridiculous that  there is so much foot dragging on that path.  All I can guess is that the carbon based energy crowd wants to squeeze every last cent out of our pockets until their commodity is used up then ...Miraculously ..."discover" alternate energy and present it in their current model as something THEY have a right to hold over us and continue bleeding the American public with.


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been misinformed, Boed.
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Export-Import Bank_ approved loans to the Brazilian oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A to buy U.S. made equipment and services.
> 
> 
> *Obama had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY correct, the deal was with the Bank....made by Bush appointees, not even by Obama appointees...
> 
> we have had a thread on this already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> however, I seethe issues at stake and worth discussion in the article are;
> 
> Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled.
> 
> The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.
Click to expand...

 
Brazil/BIOFUELS Indeed... Sugarcane...

*Ethanol fuel in Brazil*


----------



## JBeukema

boedicca said:


> _
> 
> *The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.*_


That explains the move towards a free trade agreement with them


----------



## Mr. H.

An opinion piece, but a dandy...

Brazil Stiffs Obama on Oil Deal, Exposing President's Incompetence - Yahoo! News

The crux of the biscuit:

_Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies. _


----------



## RGR

HUGGY said:


> but the powers with the death grip on our energy needs have sabotaged every attempt to gain ground in that direction.



Who are you kidding? You can march down to the corner store, buy and set up a nice PV system of any size you wish on your roof, or in your yard, match it with a nice passive solar system you can assemble from bits and pieces you can buy at Lowes, march down to your Nissan dealer and collect a nice electric car (for days you don't want to bicycle), throw some insulation at your house, and man you are DONE.

If it really bothered you, you would stop whining about mysterious powers and pretending to be a victim, get with the program, and SOLVE the problem. If it really bothered you.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> An opinion piece, but a dandy...
> 
> Brazil Stiffs Obama on Oil Deal, Exposing President's Incompetence - Yahoo! News
> 
> The crux of the biscuit:
> 
> _Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies. _



Schwizer? Really? LOL...   This is a writer who still operates on this topic under the long-debunked notion that Obama gave $2 trillion to Brazil. 

Whenever absorbing the RW's horseshit storyline regarding world oil reserves, always be skeptical. This one originates from yet another laughable chain email that cons usually eat right up without any semblance of critical analysis.

FactCheck.org : Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims



> *Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims*
> FactCheck.org : Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims
> Posted on September 18, 2009
> 
> *Q:* Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil&#8217;s oil company ... ?
> 
> *A:* The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.
> 
> The e-mail is false on two counts.
> 
> The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive order" by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama&#8217;s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states:* "In fact, at the time the Bank&#8217;s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."*
> 
> The message falsely claims that "we have absolutely no gain" from the loan. *In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services.* The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.​



LOL!!!! Catch that last part? Cons such as WSJ columnists and far-right wing forum drones didn't. ... The corporate loan was so that Petrobas can buy U.S. equipment and expertise. ... Nevermind that by investing in Brazil - which turns around and invests in PRIVATE U.S. industry - we might buy oil at reduced cost in the long run, enhancing competition against OPEC and reducing oil prices worldwide. 

Cons also try to claim the bank's loan to Petrobas comes from U.S. tax payer dollars - another complete load of anti-Obama horseshit. 

This is a writer who admires Sarah Palin, and scribes tripe like this:

Sarah Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Epic fail.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Whenever absorbing the RW's horseshit storyline regarding world oil reserves, always be skeptical.



Versus the nonsense that an oiltard propagates? Remember Jiggsy, they aren't parrots like you.


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An opinion piece, but a dandy...
> 
> Brazil Stiffs Obama on Oil Deal, Exposing President's Incompetence - Yahoo! News
> 
> The crux of the biscuit:
> 
> _Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwizer? Really? LOL...   This is a writer who still operates on this topic under the long-debunked notion that Obama gave $2 trillion to Brazil.
> 
> Whenever absorbing the RW's horseshit storyline regarding world oil reserves, always be skeptical. This one originates from yet another laughable chain email that cons usually eat right up without any semblance of critical analysis.
> 
> FactCheck.org : Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims*
> FactCheck.org : Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims
> Posted on September 18, 2009
> 
> *Q:* Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazils oil company ... ?
> 
> *A:* The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.
> 
> The e-mail is false on two counts.
> 
> The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive order" by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obamas appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states:* "In fact, at the time the Banks Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."*
> 
> The message falsely claims that "we have absolutely no gain" from the loan. *In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services.* The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!! Catch that last part? Cons such as WSJ columnists and far-right wing forum drones didn't. ... The corporate loan was so that Petrobas can buy U.S. equipment and expertise. ... Nevermind that by investing in Brazil - which turns around and invests in PRIVATE U.S. industry - we might buy oil at reduced cost in the long run, enhancing competition against OPEC and reducing oil prices worldwide.
> 
> Cons also try to claim the bank's loan to Petrobas comes from U.S. tax payer dollars - another complete load of anti-Obama horseshit.
> 
> This is a writer who admires Sarah Palin, and scribes tripe like this:
> 
> Sarah Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> Epic fail.
Click to expand...


This proves that Obama is even a bigger fuck than I realized. Thanks.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever absorbing the RW's horseshit storyline regarding world oil reserves, always be skeptical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Versus the nonsense that an oiltard propagates? Remember Jiggsy, they aren't parrots like you.
Click to expand...


No, not versus anything. The assertion stands on it's own quite clearly, evidenced by your team's utter refusal to counter it.

Address the claim in the post, or shut the fuck up. 

You're a beaten fool. And you suck horribly at disputing peak oil, ... which is here. And that is true no matter how much you squawk about bitumen, kerogen, fracking or create other false narratives from WWII that have no bearing on today.



Mr. H. said:


> This proves that Obama is even a bigger fuck than I realized. Thanks.



How so? Try and flesh it out this time, and don't avoid the question.

It's not our fault you clung yourself to another bullshit RW claim long since debunked. He didn't give $2 billion to Petrobas, and it wasn't tax payer money. Every RW assertion about Brazil's oil after that follows the original lie. Deal with it, and do better.


----------



## editec

boedicca said:


> Obama recently took spring break in Brazil, and handed out billions in loans for offshore drilling.
> 
> Let's look at Brazil's Energy Policy:
> 
> _Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. And yes, Brazil has gone from importing 77% of its oil from foreign sources in 1980 to importing no oil by 2009. A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled._
> 
> _*The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.*_
> 
> Stephen Hayward: The Secret to Brazil's Energy Success - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> If it's good enough for the U.S. to loan money to Brazil to drill off shore, *why don't we allow our domestic oil companies to increase production?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> You need to educate yourself, dear.
> 
> We _have._  Oil output was up 8.9% in 2008 and 2.82% on 2009
> 
> You have, per usual, been tragically misinformed, Boedica.


----------



## HUGGY

RGR said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the powers with the death grip on our energy needs have sabotaged every attempt to gain ground in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you kidding? You can march down to the corner store, buy and set up a nice PV system of any size you wish on your roof, or in your yard, match it with a nice passive solar system you can assemble from bits and pieces you can buy at Lowes, march down to your Nissan dealer and collect a nice electric car (for days you don't want to bicycle), throw some insulation at your house, and man you are DONE.
> 
> *If it really bothered you, you would stop whining about mysterious powers and pretending to be a victim, get with the program, and SOLVE the problem. If it really bothered you.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I'm the least victimized person I know.  Nice pep talk though.
Click to expand...


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever absorbing the RW's horseshit storyline regarding world oil reserves, always be skeptical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Versus the nonsense that an oiltard propagates? Remember Jiggsy, they aren't parrots like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not versus anything. The assertion stands on it's own quite clearly, evidenced by your team's utter refusal to counter it.
Click to expand...


What team? You mean those of us who know what reserves are, have quantified them our entire professional lives versus oiltards? Or parrots?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Address the claim in the post, or shut the fuck up.



You don't have the brains to make a claim, all you can do is cut and paste. And I responded to the piece you haven't understood, don't understand, and won't ever understand.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> You don't have the brains to make a claim, all you can do is cut and paste. And I responded to the piece you haven't understood, don't understand, and won't ever understand.



No, you didn't. You ran from it, you unrivaled fraud. It's what you do. You haven't said anything about the Petrobas claim. All you've done is PARROT the squawkings of known abiotic oil theoriest Stevie Gorelick and his wild claims of GoM reserves. That was properly dominated as a load of horseshit, and you went back to acting like a dick on a personal level. It's all you have.

I understand the bogus Brazil claims completely, and supported my work clearly. Meanwhile, the past six months or so, you're coming to grips with the fact that - for all your bloviation - your position has become completely untenable.

So, once again:

The president didn't give $2 billion to Petrobas
U.S. tax money was not used
The reserves found off Brazil are mostly deepwater, sub-salt formations that will be very expensive to develop, and won't make a dent in the overall depletion of existing giants.

Peak of conventional crude arrived in 2005, and the world will never produce more than 95 million barrels per day in any combination of poisonous junk your heroes remain so desperate to accomplish. Never. It can't even meet demand already.

I know that puts sand in your diaper. Your "burn everything" and "ride your bike to work" world of retarded simplicity does not pass the sniff test, but that's what happens when arrogant asshats like yourself remain mired in the first two stages of grief.

Ah well. You can always cling to the "you're just dumb" strategy like you have to this point. Meanwhile, the world continues to break down all around you and you're too stupid to understand why....  Don't touch your money. Everything will be fine for your free market utopia. LOL.

I can not wait to witness the avalanche of U.S. gas companies scramble to bankruptcy when the shale gas boom goes bust this year.


----------

