Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on March 26, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil: “Show-Stoppers”

General Ideas

Freshly fracked wells sent U.S. oil production soaring 39 percent since 2011. That’s the steepest climb in history, and if production continues apace, the U.S. would become the world’s biggest source of oil by 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information  Administration.
Rapid well declines threaten to spoil that promise. The average flow from a shale gas well drops by about 50 percent to 75 percent in the first year, and up to 78 percent for oil, said Pete Stark, senior research director at IHS Inc.
‘The decline rate is a potential show stopper after a while,’ said Stark, a geologist with almost six decades in the oil patch. ‘You just can’t keep up with it.’ [1]

That’s an interesting comment, given that the company Mr. Stark works for is more commonly known for its sunny optimism about our future fossil fuel supply.


The reality is that rapid decline rates are a common feature of fracked wells. Drilling faster, more, and at higher costs just to keep pace with current production is not exactly a winning strategy. Higher costs for them are supported by the higher costs we pay. At some point, consumers balk, and when they do, there goes a lot of investable funds for more production. Then what?

The article from which that quote was sourced describes some of the admittedly-fascinating overview of the artificial intelligence systems now being considered—and it some cases already deployed—to improve the drill results from fracking (the hydraulic fracturing of shale in order to facilitate the flow of “tight” oil trapped in those rocks.) The article notes that “four out of every 10 clusters of fractures in an average horizontal well are duds.” Given that each well can cost millions of dollars, much more than wells drilled in conventional crude oil fields, that can be a problem.


The use of fiber-optics and 3D seismic imaging are among the technological advances now being used to aid scientists “scientists see and hear what’s going on two miles underground.”

An executive of Schlumberger Ltd is quoted in this same article announcing that the combination of their own scientists’ expertise with the “U-ROC” software program “has led to an almost 30 percent increase in production in some wells in the Eagle Ford [TX].”

An official from another petroleum company that after collaborating with Halliburton and using a “science-based approach,” his company’s “shares doubled in the five months after” a conference call with investors.

If that’s not enough good news, by last summer the company enjoyed its “best-ever results” in the shale formations of western Texas’ Permian Basis, “and that it was ‘among the best’ among its competitors at that location. The improvements were attributed in part, as a spokesman noted, to the company’s “own internal efforts to pump more time and money into the science of drilling and production.”


Improved performance is improved performance. But for those of us interested in how depleting and finite fossil fuel resources—with a healthy concern that technology and economics will continue to make extraction and production feasible to begin with—will keep up with demand in the years ahead, the doubling of a company’s shares, “an almost 30 percent increase in production in some wells,” being “among the best,” and pumping “more time and money into the science of drilling and production” suggests that all is not well in Oil Production Land.

That’s precisely what those of us concerned about peak oil continue to stress to listeners and readers.

It’s probably safe to assume that none of those efforts or the technologies employed are inexpensive. It’s also a certainty that whatever costs are associated with developing, testing, supplying, and using those impressive advances get passed on to consumers.

The impressive technologies now in play, with their higher costs, to locate and produce a product harder-to-come-by and not of the same quality as the conventional crude oil we’ve used to power our civilization for more than a century all point to the fact that we clearly can no longer rely on Business As Usual in oil production itself and fossil fuel usage by all of us.

Taking a bit of a detour in the headlong pursuit of ever more expensive technologies in order to plan for what happens in years to come when that resource just doesn’t do what we all need it to do; or devote more resources to the alternatives which will be needed when it makes little sense to continue the fossil fuel chase; or even provide more information to the public now so that they can get into the game doesn’t seem all that unreasonable, does it?

peak oil matters

40 Comments on "Peak Oil: “Show-Stoppers”"

  1. rockman on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 12:53 pm 

    “The use of fiber-optics and 3D seismic imaging are among the technological advances now being used …” As they have been for over 20 years. Have had the capabilities for a long time. Just needed $100/bbl to justify applying them to the shales.

  2. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 1:02 pm 

    The essay meanders and doesn’t have much new content. It also doesn’t identify the real plusses/minuses of shale oil wrt peak oil situation.

    1. Get over the “decline rate”. Everyone knows about it. These guys are “mining coal”. They are planning to make up the costs of the well in the first year or two. What comes after is gravy. And there’s plenty of downsides with wells that have lesser declines but which don’t pay off fast (NPV, price uncertainty, etc.)

    2. Yes, the wells are expensive. If we have a price drop, the shale plays turn off. But this also implies…we had a price drop in the global market!

    3. There is also significantly less uncertainty doing infill drilling in a continuous resource (e.g. Bakken middle member) than there is going after traps. They are doing like 1% dry holes in the Bakken and 80% are economically positive. So yeah…they’re expensive, but don’t look at success versus success (LTO versus conventional), look at overall development versus overall development.

    4. (Not from this article, but a consistent doomer crit). Get over criticizing the oil quality. This was a meme from the 80s through 2000s…that we were getting less and less high API oil, what was being found was sour/heavy, not light/sweet. Well, Bakken oil is WTI (maybe 1 or 2 API points higher and even LESS sulfur). And the EF, and some of the other gassier plays (e.g. SCOOP) are arguably more API than wanted. But not the “dirty oil, bitumen” that doomers expected to see with new finds. But when I hear people criticize Bakken oil quality, that just shows lack of intellectual integrity to face facts.

    5. The Bakken and EF are getting huge capital investment because the oil is coming out. That it mostly comes out the first year, makes it that much easier to plan on. Yeah, the play turns off with a price crash, but these guys are hedged for first year. New entrants are not going to make high returns because the value of the plays is now recognized. Landholders, state taxes, and early entrants are capturing the returns. But those are great businesses, not dotcoms. It’s just the acreage has been bid up based on recognized value.

    Net/net: There is a reason why LTO volume is growing much faster than conventional is in the US. That US conventional stuff has been very picked over (and yes, there’s still opportunities, especially at $100, but not as much). US LTO is growing fast because the financial returns justify it and the oil is there and we have the skill to get it out at acceptable costs in a 100/bbl world.


    The bigger issues (more pertinent criticisms) of the shale fracking boom are

    (1) Not that many plays to go after. Bakken and EF are basically it (listen to Mark Papa). The Utica didn’t work. TMS isn’t really working. Monterey has very tricky geology (and regulatory). Niobrara is giving us something, but nothing like Bakken or EF. You’ll get some Permian development also, but not as high return. So those are basically the oil shale plays. After that, you (might) be done.

    (2) There definitely will be limits to downspacing in EF/Bakken (this could be considered part of 1). So far, the downspacing is actually doing better than pessimist peakers (Piccolo, Rune, TOD commenters) thought. Zipper fracks, layer cakes, etc. are helping to keep type curves higher than expected. But they will come to a point of diminishing returns.

    P.s. Do not make the mistake of confusing oil and gas shale situations. The gas price is local, oil is (mostly) global. Gas is a smaller molecule (flows better) and there is more of it. In the words of one of your own peaker experts (IOC guy, not some Internet commenter), ‘gas has legs, oil doesn’t’. So don’t automatically connect and confound the two just based on your ideology (remember how bad Hubbard screwed up his peak gas call…I mean WAY off.)

  3. shortonoil on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 1:13 pm 

    The majority of shale production is in the form of condensate. The Bakken are the only tight formations in the country that produce a significant volume of oil, the remaining eight major fields are gas fields. Condensate is usually rated as “lean” to “rich”, with no defined specification associating them. “Lean gas” fields are primarily natural gas (CH4). “Rich gas” fields contain greater levels of C7 heptane) fractions, or higher that can be used to produce transportation fuels. But, the volume of higher numbered fractions in even “rich gas” fields is very low.

    Analysis done by the Department of Petroleum Engineering, of the Norwegian Institute of Technology of the Samson County, TX fields, which are “rich gas” fields, determined that 6.9% of the volume produced was composed of C7 fractions or higher. That is, less than 7% of the production from “rich gas” fields can actually supply the energy needed to power our transportation fleet.

    6.9% will hardly put America on the road to energy independence, unless the shale industry plans on selling a lot horses!

  4. Makati1 on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:02 pm 

    And then there is the collapsing Western economy …

    Print baby print! The EU to soon start up their presses to see who can print the most before the explosion. LMAO

  5. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:08 pm 

    Condensate percentage of Eagle Ford has come down quite a bit recently. See here:

    Be wary of assuming what you knew (or opined) a couple years ago is still true. Peaker/doomers like to hold onto crits instead of watching what is really happening and learning from it.

    The linked thread shows a couple mistakes by Ron (assuming RRC updates only occur for one month, that EIA has too high numbers. Note, Roger Blanchard also messed this up). And then the condensate proxy. The EIA/RRC discrepancy is really a boner, since Dennis had earlier posted graphs showing how RRC were updated to raise consistently (and much more than just the last month).

    But what happens is people see these blog posts (e.g. the Blanchard piece, the Rune Red Queen) and just keep assuming they are valid even long after the facts have been shown to the opposite. Sort of doesn’t surprise me as most people on the Internet are there more for social interaction and to have their mindsets reinforced, than to really push their thinking.

  6. Northwest Resident on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:32 pm 

    “…people on the Internet are there … to have their mindsets reinforced…”

    Funny you should mention that Nony, as that is the exact impression I get of you. While it is clear to those of us who process information logically that shale oil plays are a loser in terms of delaying world oil production decline for any more than a very short time period, you just don’t seem to be able to come to grips with the facts. There are plenty of articles on the internet that provide defective thinkers such as yourself with all the information they need to build an imaginary world where shale oil is entirely adequate to keep BAU going far into the future, which it isn’t. YOU are the one always talking about NG futures which every savvy investor and every oil company exec in the world will tell you are unreliable and subject to dramatic ups and downs that make predicting future NG prices a fool’s game. YOU were the one last week saying that it would be “easy” for America to not only produce enough NG to stop having to import it, but to also produce enough excess that America could begin exporting NG to Europe — when nobody not even the experts have been able to figure out how to do that in a reality-based world, of which, you are not a member.

  7. shortonoil on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:52 pm 

    “Condensate percentage of Eagle Ford has come down quite a bit recently. See here:”

    Of course condensate production is falling? As condensate wells produce their pressure falls until they hit the dew point. At that point the heavier fractions condenses out of the gas into the well, where they are lost. The percentage of condensate produced goes down, the percentage of gas (NG) goes up. This is usually accompanied with decreasing overall flow rate because of condensate blockage. That doesn’t mean that Eagle Ford production is getting better, it means it is getting WORSE!

    I think it would be better to be wary of what YOU know!

  8. westexas on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:55 pm 

    Oil & Gas Journal:

    Financial questions seen for US shale gas, tight-oil plays

  9. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 2:56 pm 

    Short: the graph I linked to was percentage of crude and condensate that is condensate. Not percentage of gas and condensate.

  10. Boat on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 3:08 pm 

    When are we going to see an article that explains the phenomenon of the US exporting almost 4 mbpd in exported finished petroleum products. I have seen it mentioned the cheap US Nat Gas is now used in the gulf refineries to refine oil instead of oil but very little has been written about it. I was hoping one of the fossil fuel guys might shed more light on this paradigm shift with some numbers.

  11. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 3:20 pm 

    People have noted it. It doesn’t favor the peaker memes though. But someone like Kopits (peaker but fair about it) will note it.

    The net exports are about 2 MM bpd. There’s a little bit of LPG in there but it’s mostly gasoline and such. Effectively it puts you another 2 MM bpd closer to “energy independence” (even though I think that’s overdone concept, what matters is world price, which still sucks…)

  12. keith on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 3:29 pm 

    Nony = paid corporate troll.

    Nony rhymes with Loony = subconscious implant

  13. keith on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 3:30 pm 


  14. Plantagenet on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 3:31 pm 

    All the high depletion rate means is that production can’t keep growing. At some point the ability to drill new wells will match the depletion rate, and production will stabilize at a permanently high level.

  15. Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:09 pm 

    Planet remember this:

    You act like it grows on trees

  16. rockman on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:16 pm 

    “…and production will stabilize at a permanently high level.” Until, of course, there are no more good locations to drill. As has happened in every US oil play since the beginning.

  17. Boat on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:20 pm 


    Exports have nothing to do with energy independance in the US. We still net import oil and Nat Gas.

  18. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:21 pm 

    Davey, as long as the costs of the extraction are being rewarded, there’s no reason not to continue drilling. They’ll stop if the oil price drops or if the oil runs out. Not because they “run out of money”.

    Capital flows to opportunity. Make the opportunity go away and the capital will dry up. Otherwise, no problem putting more and more money into holes in the ground. After all, you get the oil back and it sells for 100/bbl.

  19. shortonoil on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:23 pm 

    “Short: the graph I linked to was percentage of crude and condensate that is condensate. Not percentage of gas and condensate.”

    The Eagle Ford is a calcareous mud stone, and chalk formation in Southern Texas. It is about 50 miles wide, and 400 miles long. Well depth range from 4,000 ft to 14,000 ft, north to south. Temperatures range from 150 deg F in the north to 350 in the south. Pay depth ranges from 100 ft in the north to 300ft in the south. The entire region is over pressured. It is the shallower wells that produce oil, and the area with the thinnest pay depth.

    If the entire production of the Eagle Ford was changing toward more oil, that could only be because drilling activity has been directed toward the northern regions. I haven’t seen anything from the TRC that indicates that is happening. But even if it was the change could only be minimal over any reasonable period of time. There are too many existing wells producing for new additions to make much of a percentage difference.

  20. bobinget on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:43 pm 

    Maybe its time for some rhubarb pie;
    Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending March 21, 2014

    U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.1 million barrels per day during the week ending March 21, 2014, 141,000 barrels per day more than the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 86.0% of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production decreased last week, averaging 9.0 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel production increased slightly last week, averaging over 4.7 million barrels per day.
    U.S. crude oil imports averaged over 7.6 million barrels per day last week, up by 308,000 barrels per day from the previous week. Over the last four weeks, crude oil imports averaged over 7.3 million barrels per day, 3.2% below the same four-week period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged 628,000 barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged 228,000 barrels per day last week.
    U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) increased by 6.6 million barrels from the previous week. At 382.5 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are near the upper limit of the average range for this time of year. Total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 5.1 million barrels last week, and are in the lower of the average range. Both finished gasoline inventories and blending components inventories decreased last week. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 1.6 million barrels last week but are below the lower limit of the average range for this time of year. Propane/propylene inventories fell 0.6 million barrels last week and are near the lower limit of the average range. Total commercial petroleum inventories increased by 5.5 million barrels last week.

    Total products supplied over the last four-week period averaged 18.6 million barrels per day, up by 1.1% from the same period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline product supplied averaged over 8.7 million barrels per day, up by 3.4% from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied averaged over 3.7 million barrels per day over the last four weeks, down by 0.9% from the same period last year. Jet fuel product supplied is up 3.8% compared to the same four-week period last year.

  21. Northwest Resident on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 4:46 pm 

    “Davey, as long as the costs of the extraction are being rewarded, there’s no reason not to continue drilling.”

    Nony — Here’s an article from a source that I know you trust — Forbes — that explains in detail exactly why the costs of shale oil extraction are NOT being rewarded:

    “But it must be said that when you take into account all the costs incurred in acquiring and developing unconventional oil fields today, many plays are already balanced on the knife-edge of profitability, and any down draft in oil pricing could dry up activity real quick.”

    www dot forbes dot com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/13/why-americas-shale-oil-boom-could-end-sooner-than-you-think/

  22. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 5:00 pm 


    Again, your comment about relative condensate versus gas is FLAWED, since the graph is of percent condensate WITHIN C&C, not within gas and condensate.

    P.s. It has been very well reported in the industry that development is favoring oil versus gas (the prices explain this). GIYF. But that’s irrelavent, you were still wrong about the chart I referenced. C&C production is still growing AND it is becoming more oily. Them’s the facts.

  23. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 5:05 pm 

    NR: That article is fine and I agree with it. LTO is not perfect or limitless. It only works at high prices and it’s not limitless. Also, people are going to develop up to the margin of profitability and if oil price drops, the more marginal acreage becomes unprofitable. That’s fine. It doesn’t mean the whole thing is some conspiracy or even that the heart of the play is not promising.

  24. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 5:11 pm 

    Short: here’s an example of discussion of EF production becoming more oily recently

    There are plenty more articles on this if you Google. (Really, it’s common.) But in any case, you don’t need those articles. The facts speak for themselves in Dennis’s chart. Percent condensate of C&C dropped form 50% to 20% over two years (JAN2011 to JUL2013). Just read the chart…

  25. Boat on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 5:44 pm 

    Question of the day. How much oil is used to refine a barrel of oil. Or as in the case of gulf refineries. How much Nat Gas is used to refine a barrel of oil. And what is the cost difference.

    Will this refining advantage using nat gas to refine spread to Canada and Mexico as well as the fracking boom continues.

    I will be the first to predict North America will export more and more finished petroleum products over the next 10 years.

    I am having trouble finding numbers to back this idea but it seems logical.

  26. rockman on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 6:04 pm 

    Nony – “They’ll stop if the oil price drops or if the oil runs out. Not because they “run out of money”.” A year or two ago I might have agreed with you 100%. Now…maybe only 70%. No hard numbers but I’m starting to hear about more companies having difficulty coming up with 100% of the capex they need. If I’m getting the straight poop one problem is that the bankers are getting a tad more nervous than they usually are and are pulling back credit lines a bit. But not so much from any sense of less profitability but that so many pubcos are now exposed to too price risk. IOW if prices fall enough long enough they’ll not only have reduced borrowing capability but a much larger share of revenue with be needed for debt service. Thus with less drilling capex available the Red Queen might stumble and reserve growth will suffer. This could become a death spiral some companies might not be able to escape. Of course, that would be a boom for the ExxonMobil’s that could swoop in and buy them on the cheap.

  27. Plantagenet on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 6:14 pm 

    The energy business is subject to booms and busts. If the oil price is too low, capex dries up and exploration slows. Ultimately production drops and the oil price goes up. This triggers off more exploration and ultimately more production.

    The cycle begins again.

    Shale oil is no different.

  28. Stilgar Wilcox on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 6:29 pm 

    “…many plays are already balanced on the knife-edge of profitability, and any down draft in oil pricing could dry up activity real quick.”

    We better hope nothing happens to lower oil price, like another recession (as QE tapers to zero and interest rates begin rising about 6 months later).

  29. Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 7:10 pm 

    Planet, yea, in the old normal but today in the new normal this has evolved. Today there is a goldilocks range that “MUST” be maintained to balance the needs of those that supply and those that demand. It can last a little longer but both sides of the equation are under high stress at the moment. The financial system, in a debt bubble held together with financial repression from global central banks practicing centralized monetary planning, is functioning now because of a confident “HERD” driving economic activity. The debt monitarization of central banks cannibalizing the underclass for the benefit of upper class is generating growth but not real net growth. I am not making a judgment on this it is what it is and a product of the systematic cycle we are in. So demand is on a knife edge of collapse with no real upside potential. One the supply side the dynamics of both above and below ground environment is trending towards increased costs of everything, steady depletion of high value conventional sources, political instability, and difficult to find and exploit new unconventional new sources. The all-important cost of money in this equation will rise at some point since rates are a historical lows. We are on a undulating peak in regards to all the above mentioned variables financial, above ground and bellow ground oil dynamics. The same is true for all other energy sources. Real growth has stagnated and will contract as the business cycle turns. The problem this time is being at diminishing returns in the limits of growth with the population in overshoot to its carrying capacity the ability of society to cycle through this contraction will likely not happen. Our complex interconnected global system is no longer resilient to a growth contraction with the excessive debt and high cost of vital resources. It is poised to break to a lower level this spells the end of the boom in oil production that was initiated with prices climbing to the range they have been in for several years. Planet, this condition has just about run its course and all these high cost reserves and production will be shut in and maybe never exploited. The very same circumstance will govern the build out of all the other energy vectors and infrastructure. It is likely that the growth of AltE power sources will soon be over except in very limited areas. This day of reckoning is near. The big question is will it be the “Long Emergency” or a quick and nasty collapse. I don’t think we can tell at this point it has never happened with a global world in overshoot and limits of growth. It will in effect be the end of growth and prosperity

  30. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 7:46 pm 

    Could be, Rock. I think the economy is a lot better off with cheap oil so if our proud little LTO world was hurt because the world price crashed, I would be like all “don’t throw me in that briar patch”. 😉

  31. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 7:50 pm 

    Rigs are running about 6% higher this year than 2013 in the Bakken. (still 4% less than 2012 though, but still not going backwards compared to last year.) But that may be just that play which has got some renewed confidence from good downspacing trials. I guess you’d have to look at rig count overall to know if US production is attracting max investment. I think there are some idle rigs, no?

  32. Nony on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 7:58 pm 

    Davy, there’s no “knife edge”. It’s just supply and demand. If we have prices crash and some suppliers (e.g. sands or LTO) exit the market, than as a customer I don’t care since what I wanted was low prices how ever I can get them. That’s why I’m happy for the LTO stopping oil from going to 120 from 100. But if the world balance shifts so that oil drops to 60 and LTO dries up, I could care less. I’m happy even. My goal is not to help Harold Hamm make more money but to have cheap oil as a feedstock.

  33. Davey on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 8:20 pm 

    Nony, the oil world is not in its own little world it can’t decouple from the global economy anymore than the global economy is immune to higher energy prices. You are fooling yourself by looking sticktly at supply, demand, and prices within the energy industry without the effects on the wider global system. A system I might add that is far from normal or healthy on almost every statistical measure. Financial repression is the name of the game along with a herd mentality believing confidence will be supported. An oil shock or for that matter something like a food shock would tip the system over.

  34. shortonoil on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 8:39 pm 

    “Short: here’s an example of discussion of EF production becoming more oily recently”

    I read the EIA link that you posted. It doesn’t say anything that wasn’t in my post above, except it says it with less detail. The only thing mentioned to “suggest” that the EF is getting more “oily” is this:

    “Relatively high oil prices and low natural gas prices make the oil-rich portions of reservoirs more desirable for production, and therefore increasingly the targets for the drilling of new wells.”

    Which doesn’t give us any reference to crude, condensate ratios, and just a short non specific discussion of GOR. It looks like just because your want something to be true, you think it is.

  35. Northwest Resident on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 8:58 pm 

    “It looks like just because your want something to be true, you think it is.”


    Nony, it is time for you to embrace the horror. Neither NG nor unconventional oil will save us or the world from the end of the age of oil. We are very close to the end of the age of oil, already at the beginning of that long slide down. At some point in the near future I hope you (and others) come to realize that fact, rather than spending your time trying to find articles and data that you can misinterpret to validate your wishful thinking.

  36. GregT on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 9:34 pm 


    Bargaining is one of the steps to acceptance. Work your way through it!

    The last step is usually anger. Best to get that one out of the way now, before things really start going south.

  37. Mr.TW. on Wed, 26th Mar 2014 11:04 pm 

    You guys would be great at a party…..

  38. Sudhir Jatar on Thu, 27th Mar 2014 3:06 pm 

    We tend to forget two critical aspects: Costs and effect on climate change.
    Even if there is abundance of shale petroleum, costs are high and there is adverse effect on the climate. These are proven. No one has denied it convincingly.
    Higher the costs of petroleum, lower the GDP. Unconventional petroleum produces two or three times green house gases than the conventional.

  39. Sudhir Jatar on Thu, 27th Mar 2014 3:51 pm 

    We tend to forget two critical aspects: Costs and effect on climate change.
    I have said it before and the same points keep repeating in different words and quoting different statistics and quotes.
    Costs and the effect on climate change are now the strategic issues that we have to take seriously.

  40. Nony on Fri, 28th Mar 2014 3:29 am 

    short: The data shows the play is becoming more oily! Compiled by a peaker (go read the analysis by DC over at Ron’s blog). You said, you wanted an article so I gave you one. But the data is the data. Sheesh. You’re just not interested in the facts!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *