Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
Almost everything i've read from you on this topic is nonsensical. It's not a huge stretch to say that.
Well, to the hard-wired, it's often difficult to grasp. You all think that if you throw enough money at a problem, and "invest wisely" without regulation, it will all work itself out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
Estimates of shale oil in Russia are in the trillions of barrels, not even counting what we are producing here,
Again, I can pretend I've found a trillion barrels behind the moon. But that says nothing of the logistics of getting it to market, nor the capacity of the average consumer to afford it.
No one said there wasn't plenty of crap-grade oil and gas from shale. What we've said is that it's not cost-effective to harvest it, and when these companies run out of borrowing power, they'll stop producing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
prices are tanking, and this doesn't count as production to you because something something not "real" oil.
Grunch much? The dip in prices is quite temporary, just like every dip in prices since the crash.
It is interesting watching you guys utterly ignore the posts where companies admit they need price closer to $100-125 to make a buck, yet trumpet the few that suggest "we can still make money (on certain wells) at $80!!!" ...
The easily manipulated are always swayed by industry propaganda. You being a perfect example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
Like, ok dude. We get it. You're sold on this.
Mmmm, yeah. Because I read, and don't lie to myself. Try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
My link was just addressing your comment that oil would be far too expensive to produce at 80/barrel - and while refineries aren't physically dragging it out of the ground, it's a major part of the production process, and um, they're still raking it in.
LOL... fail. Like I said, review post #36, and explain the contradiction you're trying to pass off with your WSJ link, which doesn't actually say what you think it says.
Once again, for emphasis:
"The vast majority of public oil & gas companies require oil prices of over $100/bbl to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programs."
Jeezus, read your story... It admits share price is down, revenue is down, production is down.
From your OWN link:
Exxon's production declined 4.7% on an oil-equivalent basis, while Chevron's dropped 0.8%. That led to a 4.4% profit decline at Exxon's upstream segment and an 8.7% decrease at Chevron.
So, yeah, thanks for supporting my argument.
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 11-03-2014 at 05:11 PM.