Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 20, 2015
Bakken, Eagle Ford Not Past Prime
Bakken production will keep growing, albeit at a slower pace, and the Eagle Ford still has running room within high-return portions of the play, according to a recent analysis by Wood Mackenzie.
The Bakken and Eagle Ford together produce just over 2.5 million barrels per day of oil, or nearly two-thirds of U.S. tight oil production.
Higher oil prices in the 2013 to 2014 timeframe spurred operators to drill not only in the core of the Williston Basin, but in the fringe and speculative areas. This included areas along the Montana-North Dakota border, the northern most part of the play near the Canadian border, and the southern portion of the Williston Basin.
Operators have responded to the decline in global oil prices from over $100/bbl last year to around $60/bbl today by reducing rig counts and retrenching drilling activity to the core Bakken area, Jonathan Garrett, principal analyst for Wood Mackenzie’s Lower 48 Upstream group, told reporters at a media briefing in Houston last week. In the early third quarter of 2014, the rig count in the Bakken was 185 to 190 rigs. Today, 86 rigs are operating in the Bakken.
The rig count is down across U.S. Lower 48 plays, including the Bakken play. Early in last year’s third quarter, between 185 and 190 rigs were operating in the Bakken. As of May 15, that number had declined to 84. However, the decline in drilling rig counts has not occurred evenly across the Bakken.
In Divide County on the northern fringe of the Bakken – where the Bakken is thinner and pressure isn’t there versus deeper parts of the play – the rig count is down about 70 percent due to the play’s more challenging economics. But in McKenzie County in the play’s core – home to the more prospective subsplays, the West Nesson and the Nesson Anticline – the rig count has not dropped off as significantly as other areas, Garrett noted.
The biggest Bakken wells in terms of production lie in the eastern fringe of the Bakken in the Parshall-Sanish, Fort Berthold and Nesson Anticline subplays. Wood Mackenzie anticipates that estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) for these wells this year and in early 2016 will likely outperform EUR estimates due to the retrenchment to the core and operators attacking their best rocks first, Garrett said.
An example of this shift is Continental Resources. Last year, the company said it would drill an average well in the Bakken of 600,000 barrels of oil equivalent. Due to low oil prices, Continental recently said that it would only drill 800,000 barrel wells or greater.
Despite calls that Bakken production will roll over, Wood Mackenzie believes that the Bakken will see a modest increase in production this year. In 2014, the play produced 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil. Wood Mackenzie now estimates the Bakken will produce just over 1.2 million bpd in 2015, a change from initial estimate made early last year. Wood Mackenzie anticipates that EURs in 2015 and the first half of 2016 will likely outperform the EUR base case by 20 percent because of companies’ highgrading their activity, Garrett said.
Wood Mackenzie expects to see the biggest future production gains in the West Nesson subplay. By 2020, Wood Mackenzie anticipates the West Nesson subplay will be “head and shoulders” against other subplays in the Bakken. While other subplays like the Parshall-Sanish are dominated by a few players, West Nesson is unique in that 12 to 13 good-size operators are drilling fantastic wells there, which will lead development over the next five years.
Garrett said that Wood Mackenzie had been watching to see if May West Texas Intermediate averaged less than $55.09/bbl. That would have been the fifth consecutive month in a row that WTI averaged less than that price threshold, and would have meant that operators would have been paying an effective state tax rate of 5 percent, not 11.5 percent. That is not likely to occur due to the rise in WTI and North Dakota’s governor recently amending the law – an amendment to the state’s oil tax rate framework. But the potential effective tax rate drop – and activity spurred by oil prices closer to $60/bbl – meant that Wood Mackenzie’s forecast of a modest production increase in 2015 would have been supported.
Plenty of Running Room Left in Eagle Ford Sweet Spots
The firm sees plenty of running room left in the Eagle Ford play in the high-performing Edwards Condensate and Karnes Trough subplays, Garrett said. The place of drilling in the play is cooling, but the performance of wells is improving over time in terms of initial production rates and EURs for the many different subplays.
Performance of Eagle Ford production continues to rise due to advancements in completions, better lateral placement, faster pump rates, and a shift from open hole completions using sliding sleeves to plug and perf with cement liner.
The proppant usage per lateral foot and fluid or water use per lateral foot in the Eagle Ford is “head above shoulders” above the Wolfcamp, Bakken and Niobrara, Garrett commented. The intensity stems from operators realizing that using more of a cheaper proppant – in the case of the Eagle Ford, natural white sand from Wisconsin and Minnesota – was a better option than a synthetic proppant. The industry has been “ahead of the curve” in the Eagle Ford in that regard.
On the fluid side, operators also have found more production success by shifting from a wider gel frack to a smaller but denser slickwater frac. Slickwater has outperformed gel in terms of cumulative production, Garrett noted. However, slickwater also requires more water; in a year or two, Eagle Ford water usage per lateral foot will be closer to figures seen in the Wolfcamp.
Eagle Ford operators also got up to speed quickly by putting a great fraction of wells on pads faster than in other plays. The ramifications of pad drilling will result in more savings and efficiencies in drilling, pressure pumping, supply chain and infrastructure.
40 Comments on "Bakken, Eagle Ford Not Past Prime"
rockman on Wed, 20th May 2015 8:06 am
All the improvements noted in the EFS are true. But they were true over a year ago. Little has changed in the methodology in the last year. Which means, of course, any well drilled now will benefit from that learning curve the same as wells drilled in 2014. But that means they be just as efficient as wells drilled before the price slump.
As far as drilling being more focused in the “sweet spots” that’s somewhat misleading: the sweet spot were being hit hard before the price slump so no significant increase in those areas. The increased percentage of the wells drilled in those areas will be the result of drilling projects being dropped in the non-sweet spots. The average production PER WELL might increases but with the drop of almost 50% of the rigs in the trend obviously new less oil production will be brought on. IOW better wells but a lot less wells in total.
And once more due to the time lag factor: we won’t see the full effect of the rig count drop until 3Q/4Q 2015. So it’s pointless to debate what EFS production will look like in 6 months…we’ll know soon enough.
Brent on Wed, 20th May 2015 9:37 am
And my question is how long until declines in conventional wells catch up to the supposed continued but slower increase in shale oil?
BobInget on Wed, 20th May 2015 10:13 am
Today’s mildly bullish Weekly EIA report
was met with a barrage of selling.
At some point shorting will no longer be profitable as demand greatly improved.
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending May 15, 2015
U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged over 16.2 million barrels per day during the week
ending May 15, 2015, 245,000 barrels per day more than the previous week’s average.
Refineries operated at 92.4% of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production
decreased last week, averaging about 9.7 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel
production decreased last week, averaging over 4.8 million barrels per day.
U.S. crude oil imports averaged 7.2 million barrels per day last week, up by 318,000
barrels per day from the previous week. Over the last four weeks, crude oil imports
averaged over 7.0 million barrels per day, 0.4% above the same four-week period last
year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished gasoline and gasoline
blending components) last week averaged 542,000 barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports
averaged 227,000 barrels per day last week.
U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve) decreased by 2.7 million barrels from the previous week. At 482.2 million
barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are at the highest level for this time of year in at least
the last 80 years. Total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 2.8 million barrels last
week, but are above the upper limit of the average range. Both finished gasoline
inventories and blending components inventories decreased last week. Distillate fuel
inventories decreased by 0.5 million barrels last week and are in the lower half of the
average range for this time of year. Propane/propylene inventories rose 2.6 million
barrels last week and are well above the upper limit of the average range. Total
commercial petroleum inventories decreased by 2.1 million barrels last week.
Total products supplied over the last four-week period averaged about 19.7 million
barrels per day, up by 3.9% from the same period last year. Over the last four weeks,
motor gasoline product supplied averaged over 9.0 million barrels per day, up by 1.1%
from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied averaged over 4.1 million
barrels per day over the last four weeks, up by 1.6% from the same period last year. Jet
fuel product supplied is up 6.5% compared to the same four-week period last year.
Note: consumption went up 700,000 B p/d
in a single week. Jet fuel demand remains strong.
Given international demand also improved, expect oil prices to be trading in the $70/$80 buck range in fewer then 30 days.
bobinget
BobInget on Wed, 20th May 2015 10:22 am
FUZZY NUMBERS
By now it should be clear that all the data on oil production, consumption and stocks, especially outside the United States, is only a very rough approximation.
Once we accept that the numbers are fuzzy, it follows that any analysis and forecasts based upon them must also by necessity be fuzzy too.
The danger is that analysts try to over-interpret small changes in the published data without allowing for the enormous amount of uncertainty which surrounds them.
Translation: Iran and Saudi Arabia are at War.
Take sides if you wish but stop denying.
rockman on Wed, 20th May 2015 10:30 am
Brent – along those same lines but more important IMHO: how long until declines in UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS catch up?
Remember all those high rate unconventional well that came on in 2014 wells and contributed to the continued surge in US production will have declined at a much higher (40%+) rate over their first 12 months of life as our current conventional wells which are in the low single digits of decline. For instance those high rate Eagle Ford wells that were drilled 3+ years ago have declined as much as 80% by now. The only reason production kept increasing is because even more EFS wells were drilled to replace those declines. But with the rig count drop obviously that rate of new production gains will be much lower but the declines of the recent wells will continue unabated.
Remember the average conventional US oil well produces less than 10 bopd. They are declining very slowly compared to the shale wells. The difference is that we have a huge number of those striper wells. In reality it’s the low decline rate of our conventional wells that will keep the total decline rate of US oil production from falling off a cliff. If all our 2014 production was coming just from the shale wells we would be right on the edge of that cliff about to fall headlong into a deep hole.
Our stripper wells aren’t as sexy as those shale wells but they are the stable base of total US oil production.
Brent on Wed, 20th May 2015 11:22 am
Rock I understand that conventional a are slow and steady. From what I can gather shale wells have grown oil production around two million barrels. I am wondering when conventional a will decline by two million barrels and so there will have been no increase?
rockman on Wed, 20th May 2015 11:53 am
Brent – That’s the point I’m trying to explain: the shale has the potential to decline 2 million bopd before the conventional reservoirs will decline by that amount. Those two million bopd production from the shales began declining very rapidly from the first day they began producing. Wells that were producing a combined volume of 1 million bopd 3 years are probably only producing around 300,000 bopd now…and maybe even less. OTOH conventional wells making a combined volume of 1 million bopd 3 years ago might still be producing as much as 900,000 bopd now.
The only reason total shale production hasn’t fallen significantly (yet) is because of all the new shale wells being drilled. But that rate of new shale wells coming on line has dropped dramatically in the last 4 months. The only reason we haven’t seen production fall off yet is the 6 months or so lag time between a well being drilled and when it first begins producing.
As I pointed out there’s no point in speculating today about the net effect of decline (both conventional and unconventional) and the decreased drilling activity. In another 4 or 5 months we should see where US oil production is heading.
Brent on Wed, 20th May 2015 12:54 pm
Ok thanks for explaining I will be waiting to see what happens in five to six months. I think you are right on this.
shortonoil on Wed, 20th May 2015 1:05 pm
“Despite calls that Bakken production will roll over, Wood Mackenzie believes that the Bakken will see a modest increase in production this year.”
We did an analysis of 4,598 Bakken wells between 2008 and 2012. During that period the average cost of drilling in the Bakken was $53/ barrel produced. The industry, with $360 billion per year in revenue, amassed almost $1 trillion in debt over the same period. A thermodynamic analysis we did shows that the average Bakken well hits the “dead state’ after 77,000 barrels of production. These operations are bleeding huge amounts of cash.
Wood Mackenzie will be correct if the shale operators can continue to raise cash, and increase their debt load. The question arises as to who is financing this black hole of capital. Who would be willing to spend $20 to $30 billion a year to keep the shale industry operating?
The shale industry has been credited with decreasing the price of WTI by about $40/ barrel. To the refining industry that has reduced their cost of raw materials by about $270 billion per year. Crack spreads have increased to all time highs. Spending $20 to $30 billion to get $270 billion back is a no brainier. It will continue until the backers of shale discover that shale only accounted for a small part of the price decline.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Plantagenet on Wed, 20th May 2015 2:13 pm
In 4-5 months US shale oil production should be dropping—just as the sanctions are dropped and more Iranian oil production will be hitting the world market.
peterev on Wed, 20th May 2015 2:23 pm
Brent,
One of the other things to look at is the 2015 Exxon Energy Outlook, The link is:
http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/Reports/Outlook%20For%20Energy/2015/2015-Outlook-for-Energy_print-resolution
Slide 49 shows a mustard color area called tight oil. Exxon evidently thinks that tight oil will be with us for the next 30 years or so and will be extracted from sources in North America with a peak oil production in NA sometime in or around 2030. It also shows a peak in conventional wells in 2005 (Slide 44).
All this is open to speculation and debate. Reasons for dissenting opinions can be found focused at Peak Oil Barrel and Our Finite World. The earlier site is based on petrogeology and the later on financial related concerns. Exxon apparently thinks there are enough potential sources to sustain us for awhile even through rough economic times. If we live so long, we will be seeing what happens.
There a number of other businesses and organizations who put peak production dates in various years/decades. The bottom line is that FF won’t last forever and we need to read, understand, prepare, and adapt ourselves to whatever transpires.
Personally, I think better and cheaper solar PV, solar thermal, and batteries together with the remaining FF will get us through this century but it will be interesting to see what happens. Lots of problems and situations facing us. As always, it will be challenging.
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 4:57 pm
peterev,
Sadly, another 10 years of fossil fuels usage (at present rates of consumption) gives us a 50/50 chance of causing a catastrophic runaway greenhouse event. Most of the known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground.
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 4:59 pm
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/most-fossil-fuels-must-stay-in-the-ground-new-study/
Beery on Wed, 20th May 2015 5:51 pm
GregT,
I see this assertion about the runaway greenhouse effect all the time. Do you really think for a second that we’re just going to stop using crude oil? Not gonna happen. Human beings want more oil. There is no way that oil is ever going to stay in the ground. If that means runaway greenhouse effect, that’s too bad, but nothing can change human nature. Telling people that we need to leave the oil in the ground is as pointless as telling people to stop eating unhealthy food.
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 6:20 pm
Absolutely agree Berry,
The thing is, most people are unaware of our predicament. When I hear people saying that we will be fine with alternates added on top of the remaining FF reserves, I feel the need to point out the error of their ways. I have little to zero faith though, that we will actually stop burning FFs before we cook ourselves. Our species isn’t very intelligent as a whole.
Perk Earl on Wed, 20th May 2015 6:37 pm
“Our species isn’t very intelligent as a whole.”
That’s very true, GregT. Some geniuses here and there that figure out tech for the animatronic lemmings masses that simply put their foot on the accelerator as much as they can.
It’s as if the silent not necessarily very bright consumer rules as politicians simply do their bidding to keep the gravy train coming. We will have to bump up against limits and forced to back off the accelerator against the people’s will because they won’t go into that goodnight voluntarily.
It’s all getting so fascinating to watch as more environmental situations get worse while govt’s and central banks continue to push for more growth in spite of declining net energy, while some call for a switch to renewables more FF than ever gets processed and burned in one manner or another. Humankind seems helpless to avert crises so on we go and which brick wall we run into first is anyone’s guess.
Nony on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:31 pm
What Rock said.
Yes the worse projects will get dropped, but that just improves the average while still lowering the total. It’s not like more good projects will emerge.
I don’t see any way that production can hold with half the rig count. Maybe 140, 150 holds steady. But 85?
And yes, production (perhaps after some lag) should drop fairly fast because of the decline curves typical of shale wells.
The only thing I would add (perhaps differing) is that if prices do increase (significantly, not just 5 or 10 bucks, but 90+), that shale WILL turn on again. People are crazy to think companies were drilling mindlessly. At 90 or even 100+, there are large amounts of the plays that become economical again…and no one gives a shit about whether oil went down before. After all, it’s fast decline anway! So what matters is price for now and is hedgeable 3 years out.
Nony on Thu, 21st May 2015 2:30 pm
1. I think Rock’s point about volume estimates needing to be predicated with price expectation is important. Yes, that world volume kept inching up very slightly, but at 100+, is an indication of scarcity, of “POD”. However, the converse is true when price drops AND volume remains high (not a demand drop). In the case of the Bakken/EF, if production peaks given the price drop, this does not mean “it ran out of juice” or the like. It just means that it is not economical at 60. At 100, these plays have demonstrated LOTS of legs and lots of infrastructure going in, lots of drill locations left. You peakers need to be fair and look at both sides of a coin.
2. Similarly, there was a LOT of silly wishcasting kerfuffle about how these companies were not profitable at 100 or even that the locations weren’t profitable at 100. Which was silly, considering the investment was being made in growth, considering the high payouts to mineral owners (i.e. the option to drill had value). That some companies had/will have an issue at 50 does not confirm any of the silly amateur financial analysis (biased peaker wishcasting) at 100. Even at 60, we have very few BKs. 4 tiny players.
Nony on Thu, 21st May 2015 2:38 pm
3. It is also extremely impressive that the US LTO essentially had such an effect as to become the marginal barrel. Probably stopped us from getting 150+ oil price and turned the overall price to 60 or so. Working off the glut, but equilibrium 70 or so.
This is in contrast to the biased, peaker wishcasts from Rune, Piccolo, James Hamilton, etc. It was a massive cornie validation how US LTO played out. Not exactly 1986. But 86-lite. And shows how Yergin, cornies, etc. who say “look at history, we find new sources” were right, right, right. And peakers look like idiots just like they did in the 70s.
I don’t mind that shale cut its own throat. I don’t mind that shallowsand or the oil workers here are getting paid less. I just enjoy my cheap gasoline as a consumer.
Davy on Thu, 21st May 2015 2:56 pm
NOo, how long is that huge corny validation going to hold out? It has been looking like the corn huskers are running out of heroes. I see black eyes and bloody noses soon. NOo, how do you take pain?
Nony on Thu, 21st May 2015 3:10 pm
Just drive to the gas station and fill up the Hummer. Bring some gas cans for the tractor. Yum, yum! Woot! Woot!
Peakers be all booo hooo hooo. Sad, sad, sad. No doom for them.
Northwest Resident on Thu, 21st May 2015 3:13 pm
Nony — If you like your cheap gas now, just wait until the end of the year. I read a report yesterday by Goldman Sachs that predicts $46 per barrel oil by the end of the year. Glut or no glut, the price is sinking, and it probably has a lot more to do with the fact that more and more people are sinking beneath the financial red line every day while the wealth transfer to the top 0.01 percent just keeps pouring in. I know that’s a complicated concept for some people, which is why they prefer the simplistic MSM-generated view, but just think about it Nony — if more and more people have increasingly less money, on average, then demand goes down, gluts pile up, and businesses (including oil) must lower prices to try to find enough buyers to make it worth their while to stay in business. Ponder deeply… 🙂
Nony on Thu, 21st May 2015 3:29 pm
volume is up, NR. That’s not a price drop from demand reduction if volume is up. QED.
P.s. GS can say whatever they want, but the futures market (actual money on the line) predicts oil will rise. 60.67 right now. 62.44 JAN2016 delivery contract.
Northwest Resident on Thu, 21st May 2015 4:05 pm
Barrel volume may be up, but that don’t mean a damn thing except they’re filling barrels with something that closely approximates oil, but is not the oil that your granddaddy used to know. Or mine either. I hate to see somebody putting so much faith in barrel count and in the funny money futures market. But I must admit, the fake numbers look very good on paper, the koolaide tastes sweet and the illusion of all is well can be tough to let go of.
beammeup on Thu, 21st May 2015 4:46 pm
Nony – “Similarly, there was a LOT of silly wishcasting kerfuffle about how these companies were not profitable at 100 or even that the locations weren’t profitable at 100. Which was silly, considering the investment was being made in growth…”
Possibly true, but history has yet to tell us the truth one way or the other. In order to know that these shale operators are viable long term, and can reliably generate net positive cash flows from operations in a sustained way, then we have to see some of them get past the growth phase, survive the never ending ups and downs of volatile oil prices and establish a history of sustained commercial success over the long haul. That is far from a “done deal,” so it’s too soon to say who is being silly in this case. I bet with my money, and I’m not plowing any of it into these operators, are you?
Northwest Resident on Thu, 21st May 2015 5:10 pm
beammeup — I’m pretty sure that not history, but the current moment in time is telling us with absolute authority that shale oil is a world class money loser. They’ve been losing money for a long time, they’re losing money now and they’ll keep on losing (burning) money until the final stop operations. The evidence is mountainous. Nony is just looking for a way to weasel his way out of the inconvenient fact that shale oil is not and never will be the replacement for conventional oil that he fantasizes it to be. To admit that would be to admit that we are at and even beyond the point of peak oil, and well on our way down the path to collapse. Nony will never admit that — NEVER!!!
Nony on Thu, 21st May 2015 8:37 pm
US LTO was massively NOT predicted by the peakers and has massively exceeded their predictions as it ramped up. The whole finnce thing is a bunch of sour grapes, non-responsive whining. Hamilton macro-weenie included. Wouldn’t want that guy teaching a basic micro class to undergrads. Definitely wouldn’t hire him to teach analysts at a trading firm. He’s fluffy…a citation monster…not a thinker.
Apneaman on Thu, 21st May 2015 8:52 pm
How correct were Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère when they published “The End of Cheap Oil” in 1998?
“Fracking is delaying the moment when global production of liquid fuels begins to decline. In 1998, Colin and Jean gave the peak of all liquid fuels as 2010 but, at the same time, noted that some responses could delay this date. The most important lesson that we can now take from the 1998 article was that the world was warned that the days of inexpensive oil were numbered and that many nations that import large quantities of oil, not least those of the EU, should have listened to this advice and responded more appropriately.”
https://aleklett.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/how-correct-were-colin-campbell-and-jean-laherrere-when-they-published-the-end-of-cheap-oil-in-1998/
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 2:36 am
Campbell screwed the pooch, screwed it hard, and refuses to admit it. Intellectual coward. Has been making false peak calls back to 1989!
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 2:52 am
Laherre is interesting. He seems to only be calling sands unconventional (also the text of the article). As Rock has often pointed out hz drilling and fracking were well known techniques. And they meet Laherre’s definition in article of primary and secondary recovery (primary actually!). Furthermore, the graph of US/CA oil is interesting. Totally screwed the pooch in not predicting the US LTO spike.
Peakers…screwing up since the 70s. And I remember it well. they looked like absolute MO-RONS from 1986 on.
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 2:54 am
Laherre:
“Dear Kjell
In the joint 1998 article we were rather shy on defining unconventional. At this time and even now there is no consensus on what is conventional or not. For me conventional was primary and secondary recovery production where only pressure was changed with water or gas injection. My 1998 red curve is crude oil less extra-heavy which for me is conventional.
Jean”
IOW, LIGHT tight oil was not excluded. Just the extra heavy crap. WTIesque oil from shale KICKED their asses!
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 3:52 am
Here’s Laherre screwing up natgas predictions in 2007 even when shale was already starting.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/NAm-NG2007.pdf
-says no “fourth wave” of supply…wrong.
-says the EIA always overestimates (except they UNDERESTIMATED!)
-says we will be at 17 TCF I 2015 and we’re at 25!
-predicts that LNG IMPORTS! to the US won’t be able to keep up with stable demand.
—–
screwed up, screwed up, screwed up.
Davy on Sat, 23rd May 2015 7:30 am
NOo, you can babble all day long your corn porn but the primary point is this is LTO mal-investment or not? Peakers have shown by multiple discussions at multiple levels it is not. The chemical composition, the cost of production, the excessive debt are just a taste.
Malinvestment is another word for wasted activity. It is entropic decay in nature. You turned higher quality energy and systematic effort into less beneficial energy. Malinvestment is bad debt. It is very possible that a significant amount of the shale company’s debt is bad. This will be a huge bubble popping and with it the age old situation of a few profiting from the many. In this case a huge malinvestment of energy and activity that could have been devoted to far better activities.
NOo you try to come across as the wonder boy of the financial side of the oil complex with your supposed higher level understanding of economics. Yet, I see you as oblivious of the reality of all this. You live in an abstraction that is unreal and irrelevant to the coming descent. It is your type that will ensure a hard fall. Are your proud of that NOo?
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 10:32 am
You are word salad fluffhead, Davy boy. You don’t even know what you don’t know. Go shut up and read a book. Do some analysis. Crack some skull sweat.
Davy on Sat, 23rd May 2015 11:15 am
Thanks for the compliment NOo. From a fluff head that is an honed. As for reading books you could use some diversity in the breadth of your knowledge which is pretty narrow. Maybe that is why you are in a pussy drought. Get some diversity and women would enjoy your conversation. That’s some free advice from your a friend.
Nony on Sat, 23rd May 2015 11:22 am
No doubt. You’re still full of shit and mouthing off instead of learning the even most basic concepts of supply and demand.
GregT on Sat, 23rd May 2015 12:37 pm
PODs are a bit more complicated than the failed ideology of econ101 Nony.
You need to expand your horizons a bit and really try harder to understand complex systems. You are making yourself look like a simpleton. Most of the rest of the posters here understand something that is beyond your grasp.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 23rd May 2015 1:21 pm
Nony said: US LTO was massively NOT predicted by the peakers
Nony, that’s because the extent of financial fraud, lies, unpayable debt and total wastage of the environment was beyond their comprehension. Only (descriptive phrase here) people like you are crowing about the “benefits” of shale and LTO and other unconventional. Your brain simply doesn’t grasp the fact that unconventional is the last desperate shot at buying time before it all collapses.
BTW, Nony, I am glad to see you doing all your offensive and pompous blathering under your own moniker rather than hiding behind the pathetic posters known as Marmico and formerly Papa Smurf. Be yourself Nony — let it all hang out — show us the ugly face of desperate denial so we can all gaze in horror and amazement.
wiseintro.co on Thu, 25th Apr 2019 12:41 pm
At this time it looks like BlogEngine is the preferred blogging platform
out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using
on your blog?
brunch n lunch on Mon, 11th Nov 2019 5:22 pm
You ought to take part in a contest for one
of the finest blogs on the net. I’m going to recommend this
blog!