Outcast_Searcher wrote:Yoshua wrote:Shale oil and gas production is still uneconomic despite "advancement of technology". When the "sweet spots" are gone and they move out to produce from poorer shale the debt on their balance sheets explodes.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/upl ... 70209e.gif
Or when the sweet spots are gone, poorer spots won't be exploited commonly unless and until the price of crude rises high enough to justify the risk and expense of doing the production.
Sweet spot development in the Bakken began around 1956...and then petered out.
Of course, the crappier spots then got developed and led to one of the 2 largest producing fields in the Western Hemisphere. So sure, while the crappy, current Bakken development did require a higher price point to get started, you have just enunciated exactly why peak oil in the US was wrong....and for some reason, people never said that BEFORE it became obvious? Well, economists say it of course, but peak oilers can't stand them, because they know better than to use simplistic bell shaped curves that don't mimic oil production...to mimic oil production. Funny how the economists always knew that one, but Colin Campbell and Co. couldn't figure it out.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:That's how business and markets work over time, for those who follow data and understand that the economy functions on basics like supply and demand.
Yup. And why do you think, knowing this, that economists and their ideas that proved correct, were so discounted by the bell shaped curve zealots?
Outcast_Searcher wrote:And if some or many of them go bankrupt in the mean time, so what? That's what happens in volatile industries. It's not like the existing resources are going anywhere. And it's not like the technology (which continues to improve) used to exploit those resources is going away. And it's not like green energy sources won't continue to improve, which over time will help mitigate the global demand for oil.
But let's pretend none of that will happen, if reality gets in the way of the constant mantra of doom.
You can pretend what you'd like, the peakers did and look where it got them? Laughingstock being an understatement. But more interestingly, those of us who do the sciences and engineering and economics involved in these complex issues, tend to get called names by the zealots...? I wonder why? Jealousy at a display of critical and objective thinking perhaps? I've been touring the archives as of late, and am amazed at how poorly people that, as it turns out, speculated correctly on what was going to happen, were treated quite poorly. Jealousy being just one possible explanation, when zealotry bumps into analytics and science based thinking, or maybe just a raging instinct requiring herdthink in all things? That borders on peak oil being a religion, or at least cult-like, and itself is a topic of conversation on why peak oil worked out as it did, and those who are believers just can't let go.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"