Is the US Shale Boom Going Bust?

[Bonestorm]

So environmental standards are the same for US production and production in Venezuela? Iraq? Iran? Saudi? etc...? Ok Dung.

No. That's not what I said at all. Increased production poses increased local environmental risk. So maybe you're reducing environmental risk in Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is good, but you're increasing environmental risk in the United States.

Oh yeah, I forgot... there isn't a benefit because Dung thinks all environmental standards are the same world wide.

Uh . . .

No dung... employment benefits are not over stated, if anything they are understated. Because for the most part people reporting on the jobs are just looking at the oil/gas industries when discussing the issue. Not looking at the ancillary benefits.

No, they're overstated.

Awww... so cute... dung has a chart about what we CURRENTLY do. So good to have dung here to tell us that our CURRENT production is not enough to make us energy independent. WHO KNEW?

I didn't realize it was 2040 already. Whoa. Time flies.

Uh... yeah... you are fucking retarded. 1 and 2 are certainly related, but they are not the same. We benefit in jobs created here and those jobs keep the money here. But number 2 is different as it addresses the fact that other countries benefit from our not producing everything we can here. 3 is not nonsense. You haven't shown a thing in support of your bullshit position. Your SAYING it can't happen doesn't make it true.

Oh, but you SAYING it makes it so? LOL. I posted a chart of projections from the Energy Information Adminstration, which may know a thing or two about it.

On 4... again... tell us Dung... are environmental protections the same worldwide when it comes to production/distribution?

LOL.

 

[Bonestorm]

also dung... you have a link for your energy chart estimate?

It has already been provided.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The transport of fossil fuels through pipelines poses localized enviromental concerns where the pipelines are located, not global environmental concerns. Try again.

Again moron... are environmental protections the same world wide?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It has already been provided.

No, it was not. So do provide us a link to the actual source for your chart.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There isn't an environmental benefit.



Again, there isn't an environmental benefit. Employment benefits are overstated, not non-existent.




Not really. We use too much and don't produce enough, particularly when it comes to liquid fuels. Here's a chart:

Uh, you have, like, one legitimate point there (1 and 2 are the same thing, while 3 and 4 are nonsense for reasons already stated).

No link....

 

[Bonestorm]

Again moron... are environmental protections the same world wide?

No.

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No.

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

so environmental protections are different... good, glad to see you finally admit it. Now tell us Dung, what is better for the environment... producing where protections are stronger or where they are weaker?

Tell us also... does pollution/emissions only affect the area in which the emissions occur? Or is it a cumulative effect for the globe?

 

[Bonestorm]

No link....

Check the OP.

 

[Bonestorm]

so environmental protections are different... good, glad to see you finally admit it. Now tell us Dung, what is better for the environment... producing where protections are stronger or where they are weaker?

Tell us also... does pollution/emissions only affect the area in which the emissions occur? Or is it a cumulative effect for the globe?

I was courteous enough to answer your question. Perhaps you should answer mine.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No. That's not what I said at all. Increased production poses increased local environmental risk. So maybe you're reducing environmental risk in Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is good, but you're increasing environmental risk in the United States.

But what is the net effect Dung? If the US has stronger protections than those other countries, is the risk overall going up or down?

No, they're overstated.

LMAO... show us... explain why it is you think they are overstated. Show us the reference that you think overstates the jobs.

I didn't realize it was 2040 already. Whoa. Time flies.

Dear idiot... when you have a projection down in 2012/13 or whenever your chart is from that you refuse to link to... that is done with what we know today. Do you think your chart shows a projection using ANWAR fully tapped? Do you think it shows nat gas production expanding?

See... if you would actually provide the link to the original source of the chart instead of pretending you already linked it... we might know those answers.

Oh, but you SAYING it makes it so? LOL. I posted a chart of projections from the Energy Information Adminstration, which may know a thing or two about it.

again moron... do those projections take into account using all our resources? Or is it a projection based on what we are doing today? Funny how you champion the chart, but refuse to link to it. What year is it from Dung? What data are they using for the projection?

LOL.

Yeah, your stupidity is indeed LOL kind of retarded.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was courteous enough to answer your question. Perhaps you should answer mine.

1) You have not... you still refuse to link to the chart you are championing as requested.

2) I have answered your question. You seem to think that environmental impact is restricted to the area of original impact. That is not the case.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Check the OP.

The OP simply is the bloomberg link. Bloomberg does not link to where they got the chart. Which is why I asked you to link to the actual original link. Show us on the EIA site where that chart is. That way we can see when it was produced and what data they are using.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) You have not... you still refuse to link to the chart you are championing as requested.

2) I have answered your question. You seem to think that environmental impact is restricted to the area of original impact. That is not the case.

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

 

[Bonestorm]

The OP simply is the bloomberg link. Bloomberg does not link to where they got the chart. Which is why I asked you to link to the actual original link. Show us on the EIA site where that chart is. That way we can see when it was produced and what data they are using.

I gave you the link to the chart that I posted. I'm not going to do more than that. If you have a source that says that the US can achieve energy indepdendence you should post it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

are you fucking retarded? I have answered this multiple times.

Once more for the special ed kid... do you think pollution/emissions only effects the local area where it originates? Or does pollution/emissions have a cumulative effect on the GLOBE?

I wrote it really big so you could fucking see it this time. The answer moron is that it is a cummulative effect. That is why China's pollution effects us all. Our pollution effects everyone else.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I gave you the link to the chart that I posted. I'm not going to do more than that. If you have a source that says that the US can achieve energy indepdendence you should post it.

In other words, you know you are full of shit. You did not give a link to the chart. You gave a link to the where you GOT the chart. There is a difference you fucking retard.

 

[Bonestorm]

are you fucking retarded? I have answered this multiple times.

Once more for the special ed kid... do you think pollution/emissions only effects the local area where it originates? Or does pollution/emissions have a cumulative effect on the GLOBE?

I wrote it really big so you could fucking see it this time. The answer moron is that it is a cummulative effect. That is why China's pollution effects us all. Our pollution effects everyone else.

You're not answering the question, SF. Here it is again, and I'll highlight the part that you are ignoring:

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

 

[Bonestorm]

In other words, you know you are full of shit. You did not give a link to the chart. You gave a link to the where you GOT the chart. There is a difference you fucking retard.

No, I gave a link to the chart that I used. Again, if you have contrary information, feel free to post it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're not answering the question, SF. Here it is again, and I'll highlight the part that you are ignoring:

What GLOBAL (as opposed to local) environmental problems are caused by the extraction (as opposed to the use) of fossil fuels?

So you are saying there is no environmental problems caused by extraction? Or are you saying that the extraction problems remain solely local? Which is it Dung? I have answered your question many times. You just are too ignorant to comprehend.

So tell me... what impact is it that you think drilling and transportation have that remain solely local?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, I gave a link to the chart that I used. Again, if you have contrary information, feel free to post it.

No, you gave a link to a site that USED the chart. That is not the same thing Dung. The chart had an origin. It says it is from the EIA. Bloomberg is not the EIA. EIA is the source of the chart. Yet neither you nor Bloomberg link to it.