AdamB wrote:Considering how bad the reporting has been on most concepts contained within the US shale revolution (geology, engineering, economics) I find it unlikely that the same reporters that screw that up consistently were suddenly struck by a desire to write old fashioned. More likely they started out as twittering and tweeting experts and just screwed it up, and there editors didn't catch it, but now a day or so later you would think they would fix it. Or do people not even care about the obvious hiccups in these kinds of things in the world nowadays?
Seriously, I've interviewed candidates for positions who misspelled the title of their dissertation in their resume, how does ANYONE do that? But he was younger, it was his 2nd PhD, and it didn't seem to bother him in the least when I asked him about it.
ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - Actually at the moment the US is the focus of oil PRODUCTION from shale. But according to the EIA there are over 400 billion bbls of "UNPROVED technically recoverable" reserves scattered around the globe. We just have to wait for companies to drill a lot of wells to turn those into PROVEN COMMERCIALLY recoverable reserves.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
Which, at the moment outside of the US, don't add up to sh*t. LOL. Which is why you don't see any credible source posting an estimate of PROVEN ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE shale reserves for the entire world.
ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - Actually at the moment the US is the focus of oil PRODUCTION from shale. But according to the EIA there are over 400 billion bbls of "UNPROVED technically recoverable" reserves scattered around the globe. We just have to wait for companies to drill a lot of wells to turn those into PROVEN COMMERCIALLY recoverable reserves.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
My source (book above) points out that the primary reason that the development has gone on far more in the US than the rest of the world isn't that the US somehow has magically unique rock formations for frackable oil shale -- but that laws, capital, and a system that encourages entrepreneurial risk favored the US. Oh, and environmental issues were constraining production in Europ
rockdoc123 wrote:My source (book above) points out that the primary reason that the development has gone on far more in the US than the rest of the world isn't that the US somehow has magically unique rock formations for frackable oil shale -- but that laws, capital, and a system that encourages entrepreneurial risk favored the US. Oh, and environmental issues were constraining production in Europ
having been involved in the shale business in North America as well as the exploration for same around the world my view is it access to abundant services (which means competitive rates) and abundant equipment. In Argentina, as an example, you are still having to use Big Red or Big Blue for services with no other alternatives which means they jack up the rates. Also when the shale craze took off it was at an opportune time in the US there had been a significant downturn in conventional and hence a lot of rigs and other equipment were readily available, not so elsewhere.
pstarr wrote:The Anglo-Australian miner bought the US oil and gas assets at the height of the boom, when oil prices were above $100 a barrel. The division has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with the company’s strategy, with BHP under pressure from investors, including billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Advisors, to spin off the unit as oil prices struggle to recover above the $50-a-barrel level.
Like most everybody else, BHP neglected to check in with the doomers here at po.com. Dumb fools they are lol
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest