Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
LOL...
We can add that to the mountain of miss-the-mark oil industry deep-throaters who write that peak is a "myth" simply because they baselessly insist shale oil production has no limitations in scale.
Douche.
Yeah, that stance was put to bed a few years ago now. Writing from the perspective of finance as that Goldman Sachs groupie just did has always run in wrong direction right out of the gate, leading to more egregious false assumptions as they go along. This clown obviously doesn't understand the difference between reserves and rate of production. And neither do you.
But do make a habit of jumping just as high as Goldman tells you to. They have a long track record of being honest with their investors, huh?
I mean seriously. Click on the author's link and absorb the "more from Al Fin" headlines. What a breadth of douchey capitalistic propaganda, with a side order of Putin paranoia, to boot. Straight from central casting.
You're easily convinced by prose that you already want to be true, just like 90% of this forum that doesn't apply much critical analysis in what they read about capitalism. It's why I post here. Fortunately, physics doesn't really care what some industry-funded tool declares as they do their best to buoy investment dollars and keep the game going.
Goldman doesn't "know better" than the Pentagon, Post Carbon Institute, Energy Watch Group and the countless other national and private entities who've declared oil from shale is doomed. Heck, even industry mouth piece IEA said last month that the shale game is up by 2020, with nothing but decline to follow. I guess Goldman (with no drilling division, no petrol geologists) has a secret.
Bitter, as I've said time and time again, you don't have the math on your side. Never did. And neither do your heroes who write this crap. The logistics of what you claim to be possible simply are not there. There is absolutely no way unconventional crap-grade oil production can be expanded (exponentially) wide enough to make up for the rate of conventional declines, let alone maintain overall production growth. Especially for an industry suffering from 40% annual decline for the average well already. Think rationally. Even if you could turn 2/3 of the U.S. into this:
Where is the water going to come from? What university is pumping out the engineers to man each new pad? And where on Earth are the trillions in annual investment capital going to come from when half of these companies are deep in the red already?
What this jaggov of a writer is pretending is that what's in the ground is all that needs to be discussed. That proving flow rate growth isn't necessary. Goldman doesn't say how they get from A to Z, they just claim Z is inevitable. And so do people like you.
If you want to get into a link war pitting those who insist shale oil has no limits vs. those who see it nosediving within 6 yrs., we can do that. I have an infinite arsenal. Just remember to notice which side uses science and hard data, and which one just masturbates over cost-benefit analysis and outliers re: rosy share value.
Once again:
- too expensive to produce
- too expensive to afford
- doesn't burn nearly as efficient
- extremely carbon intense
- requires alarming amounts of water
- requires alarming levels of carcinogens
- ave. well suffers from 40% production decline each year
And people like you and Al Fin insist it will usher Star-Spangled America into a new era of prosperity and promise!!!
Get real.