Recommended Posts

(edited)

.

 

 

 

Edited by Falcon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make sense. If global supply goes up, prices go down. If prices go down (from where they are now), shale oil becomes too expensive (again).

If you are going to be a shale oil cheerleader, use some common sense!

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Doesn't make sense. If global supply goes up, prices go down. If prices go down (from where they are now), shale oil becomes too expensive (again).

If you are going to be a shale oil cheerleader, use some common sense!

Well, you use the word "If", it's not if shale production will go up, it IS going up whether or not some investors like it or not. Common sense and shale don't belong in the same sentence 🙂  Nothing about shale makes sense, ask @Tom Kirkman

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Well, you use the word "If", it's not if shale production will go up, it IS going up whether or not some investors like it or not. Common sense and shale don't belong in the same sentence 🙂  Nothing about shale makes sense, ask @Tom Kirkman

Ah yes, the Hamster Wheel of Debt, powered by lemmings who see a cliff to run toward.

I am strongly pro - oil & gas.  But U.S. Shale Oil industry simply doesn't make economic sense to me.  Mostly still losing money after a decade of "innovation". 

Reminds me of Elon Musk.  Burning through cash, but investors still throw money at him.  I don't get it.

  • Great Response! 6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 6/28/2019 at 8:54 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

.

Edited by Falcon
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the cost of production going down?

They have to drill continuously to maintain any production plateau (due to the signature decline curves related to shale oil wells). This cost of drilling actually becomes a production cost.

In shale oil country you do not have 'drilling campaigns', the drilling is continuous.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Falcon said:

Record US exports last week.  That is just the beginning.

Cartel on its last leg.  Some just haven't figured it out yet. (or are in denial). OPEC makes up 30% of production.  Most members haven't cut.

OPEC lack of transparency and forthright reporting will not matter soon.

The Investment Bankers and Industry Consultants that gushed when Khalid al-Falih speaks have been telling us for 6 months about "tight supply" . NO TIGHT Supply ! Orbital Insight Corp has shown World Inventory increase 143 mm bbls since OPEC cuts. It is both supply and demand . . . but talking heads blame price decrease all on demand. 

Can't wait till OPEC meeting in Vienna next week when OPEC will assure the world that they will make there is adequate supply available in light of recent events.

THANKYOU OPEC. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE.  YOU'RE TOO GOOD TO US.

Oil industry about to become based on "Free Market Economics" in 2020

 

 

 

OPEC is not dead and wont die anytime soon.

Their power and influence has waned but not gone. If there was no OPEC , all the current OPEC members would have no discipline and it would create complete chaos and wreak havoc, think Iraq, Libya etc with a controlling central power figure gone, it became a schitt show!!!

OPEC as bad as it may sound is still need to provide, offer some sort of stability, real and or perceived, call it the placebo effect on the markets.

Shale isnt going away any time soon, companies that arent disciplined and dont make money and settle and resolve debt issues will go the DO-DO way as many have over the last so many years. With the majors going in, there will be a lot of streamlining , select few indies will exist in the oil patch. Bottom line the shale resource is there, companies are adapting and will adapt to deploy everything possible to keep production going, costs down , try to minimise declines and deploy EOR techs to shale , drill better wells and a whole slew of old and new technologies and emerging techs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Exit Of U.S. Giant ExxonMobil Highlights The Decline Of North Sea Oil And Gas

It seems that the U.S. exodus of the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) is now in full swing. Following hot on the heels of the decision by Chevron last year to exit the region, the news is coming out of Houston that the largest U.S. energy company, ExxonMobil, is planning to sell its Norwegian assets. Although they are no longer an operator in the region, the U.S. giant holds stakes in around 20 operating fields and projects in the area.

A continuing trend

Despite this being the most significant transaction on the NCS for a decade, Julien Mathonniere, global crude oil deputy editor at ICIS does not believe this deal will have a substantial impact on the region. "ExxonMobil sold its operated oil and gas assets in Norway two years ago and no longer is an active player in the Norwegian North Sea" he explained. "We're only talking of the remaining, non-operated Norwegian Continental Shelf assets here, which are sizeable but not huge. Norway's national oil company (NOC) Equinor already operates most of these fields."

Daniel Rogers, oil and gas analyst at GlobalData, agreed that the move will have little impact. "ExxonMobil's position in Norway has been dwindling over the recent years; the company offloaded all of its operated assets in the country in 2017 but still retains stakes in 19 producing fields," he said. “Norwegian production only accounts for approximately 3% of the company's total portfolio, and the sale could help focus on activities in more core growth regions such as onshore U.S. and deep-water South America."

 

 

Looking for low-cost oil

The strategy behind the decision is simple: oil economics are shifting to more profitable plays and areas for integrated oil companies like ExxonMobil. "The tentative merger between Chevron and Anadarko earlier this year has signaled a change of paradigm among majors, some of which are refocusing on the more profitable U.S. shale plays and LNG projects," Mathonniere added. "ExxonMobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, so if its competitor Chevron has identified profitable opportunities in U.S. shale and LNG, then I'm inclined to think that ExxonMobil will follow through in some way, especially since those opportunities are low-hanging fruits lying in its backyard."

The age of the independents

ExxonMobil's exit could pave the way for several smaller, independent operators with lower operating costs to enter the arena, in much the same manner as Chrysaor's acquisition of ConocoPhillips UKCS assets for $2.68 billion last year. Norway's Okea, a private equity-backed firm, has also been mentioned as a potential buyer, and independent exploration and production companies like Aker BP, DNO, Lundin Petroleum, and PGNiG could also be among the front runners for a potential bid.

 

 
 
 

"Aker BP and DNO both previously expressed interest for mature NCS assets," Mathonniere continued. "Both are Norwegian. DNO made a hostile and controversial $778.5 million bid for U.K.'s Faroe Petroleum in November 2018, eventually ending with 20% more shares of Faroe, for a total ownership of 30.6%. Aker BP acquired 11 NCS licenses from Total for $205 million in July 2018. Both seem well positioned to continue their asset spree."

Building a balanced portfolio

For potential buyers, the assets would provide a steady positive cash flow and an oil-weighted production portfolio. ExxonMobil's Norwegian production in 2018 averaged 155,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and has declined year-on-year over the last 11 years due to production declines in major fields such as Statfjord, coupled with the sale of significant assets like Balder.

"With estimated remaining recoverable reserves of approximately 400 million barrels of oil equivalent from producing fields, there is significant value to be captured," Rogers continued. "Growth opportunities include the Trestakk oil field due to commence production in 2019 with expected gross recoverable reserves of 80 mmboe, the Snorre expansion project expected to extend field life beyond 2040 and gas discovery opportunities at Lavrans and Mikkel Sor."

A steady decline for the North Sea

The decision by ExxonMobil to leave the area also highlights the fact that the North Sea is not where the future of oil is. “It's been a declining petroleum province for a while, and it only accelerated after the oil price collapsed in late 2014," Mathonniere concluded. "Activity there has registered a painful decline, particularly concerning field investment expenditures, but also to operating costs.

"Exploration activities are below the levels that would allow renewing reserves. Production is hence not sustainable. The Johann Sverdrup is the latest big discovery on the NCS, but it might also be the last one given the lackluster exploration budgets."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markvenables/2019/06/26/the-exit-of-us-giant-exxonmobil-highlights-the-decline-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas/#6c294f4723b1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shale ,  Another Decade of U.S. Supply Growth

(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. will account for almost a quarter of global oil and gas production by the early 2030s as the shale boom keeps on booming, according to the head of Rystad Energy.

Output from shale including crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids could climb to as high as 25 million barrels a day, Jarand Rystad, chief executive officer of the research and intelligence company, said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur. The U.S. will likely make up about 23% of global liquids production and pump 27% of the world’s gas by then, he said.

Part of the reason for the expected growth is that companies are getting better at hydraulic fracturing, the process of pumping a mixture of water and sand into a horizontal well to create millions of tiny cracks in the shale rock that allow oil and gas to flow to the surface. Frackers are using more sand, creating more cracks and boosting the productivity of each well, Rystad said.

“It’s about sand, horsepower and water injection,” he said at the Asia Oil & Gas Conference. “Those three parameters are what’s driving activity levels, and those are three times higher today than they were back in 2014.”

Rystad has been a staunch believer in U.S. shale since early this decade when many analysts and OPEC ministers were unconvinced that a natural gas drilling revolution would translate to a surge in oil output. He recalled being labeled “ridiculously too aggressive” in 2012 when projecting shale crude production would grow fourfold to 4 million barrels a day within four years. The forecast was too low and shale has transformed the nation into the world’s biggest producer.

 

Looking ahead, Rystad’s optimism is also based on a recent study he’s done on the so-called parent-child interference issue, a concern that drilling a new well too close to an older one will reduce pressure in the original and cut output. While the results were mixed, overall the study showed that companies can stack wells more densely, creating enough drilling locations to support 10 to 15 more years of output growth, he said.

The shale surge underscores just how far the U.S. industry has progressed since former President George W. Bush promised to cut imports from the Middle East when he declared in 2006 that the country was “addicted to oil.” Now, said Rystad, the world is so dependent on American production that if fracking were ever banned it would cause a global energy crisis.

“Shale has become a drug that the world is addicted to,” Rystad said . “We cannot live without it. We’d never be able to compensate with OPEC and offshore production.”

 

 

image.thumb.png.d37ab50477c1ca17ed50357703c41c57.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, ceo_energemsier said:

OPEC is not dead and wont die anytime soon.

Their power and influence has waned but not gone. If there was no OPEC , all the current OPEC members would have no discipline and it would create complete chaos and wreak havoc, think Iraq, Libya etc with a controlling central power figure gone, it became a schitt show!!!

OPEC as bad as it may sound is still need to provide, offer some sort of stability, real and or perceived, call it the placebo effect on the markets.

Shale isnt going away any time soon, companies that arent disciplined and dont make money and settle and resolve debt issues will go the DO-DO way as many have over the last so many years. With the majors going in, there will be a lot of streamlining , select few indies will exist in the oil patch. Bottom line the shale resource is there, companies are adapting and will adapt to deploy everything possible to keep production going, costs down , try to minimise declines and deploy EOR techs to shale , drill better wells and a whole slew of old and new technologies and emerging techs.

 

CEO energizer

Read my post again. 

This post was intended to discuss OPEC's loss of control of oil pricing.

Shale is thriving.  Record production. U.S. Shale reserves estimates over 100 Billion bbls ! That's probably low.  Good for at least 20 years.

The majors dominate .  A dozen independents survive in long run like EOG or Pioneer. 

If I could ask you not to clog this post with your shale articles.  That debate is over.  SHALE won.

Read Gieger's article on Oil Price. Cactus II pipeline , 670K bbls day, coming online Q3. Two more coming online by Q2 2020 for total 2.6 mm bbls day from Permian to export markets.  Then EXXON just approved additional 1 mm bbls day pipeline completion 2021

SHALE THRIVES

OPEC DIES

Edited by Falcon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Falcon Just in case you haven’t noticed, Shale oil is „very light oil“ and limited to what it can be used for, so we still need heavy crude…so no Shale hasn’t won anything.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Flemming Hoog said:

@Falcon Just in case you haven’t noticed, Shale oil is „very light oil“ and limited to what it can be used for, so we still need heavy crude…so no Shale hasn’t won anything.  

I respectfully disagree.

It all works Heavy, Light Medium Sour, Sweet, Condensate. 

Heavy yields more diesel, lubes, bunker.  Some buyers like a blend. It's all used.  

When I say Shale won I was not comparing to Heavy.  I was referring to the ongoing debate that Shale reserves will run out in next 4 or 5 years. 

THE POINT OF MY POST IS OPEC IS A DYING CARTEL AND THEIR INFLUENCE IS WANING.

Do you think they extend cuts next week in Vienna ?  Surprise Surprise.  I could write their press release today.

They're losing control and they know it. It's just a matter of how long can   they keep the charade alive.  

 

Edited by Falcon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska is where we need to look. Shale is just a percentage of this US oil.

Oil producers see bright future for slope but worry about oil tax changes as state wrestles with fiscal issues
By Tim Bradner  May 17, 2019  
 
Alaska producers are increasingly optimistic about new discoveries on the North Slope and feel they can boost production by at least 200,000 barrels per day in the next few years, more than offsetting the decline of older fields that are now producing.

“If you stacked all the new discoveries (by all companies) we see 350,000 to 400,000 barrels per day, assuming they can all be successfully developed. But given the timing of these (starting at different times) it’s reasonable to expect 200,000 barrels per day,” Scott Jepsen, ConocoPhillips’ Alaska external affairs vice president told a legislative committee in Juneau recently.

That would be on top of Alaska’s current production of about 525,000 b/d. Field operators also feel they can hold currently-producing fields to about 1 percent annual decline rates with continued work on producing wells and other oilfield facilities.

More inside  
The only cloud on the horizon, however, is that the state of Alaska, worried about continued budget deficits, may again turn to the industry as a source of new revenue. While proposals to raise oil taxes haven’t gained traction in the 2019 state legislative session there is an undercurrent of talk and may gain momentum in 2020.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy said he opposes any tax change, on oil or gas or other industries without a public vote.

Jepsen and other industry officials said the surge of recent Alaska development results from a 2013 overhaul of state petroleum tax laws that lowered taxes and made the state more competitive. Changing that law change, passed in Senate Bill 21 that year, would undercut this advance, they told the House Resources Committee in Juneau.

North Slope can now be competitive even with prolific shale oil producers in the continental U.S. thanks to SB 21 along with advances in technology and gains in efficiency the companies have made since oil prices plunged in 2015, Jepsen said. ConocoPhillips can develop new Alaska oil at prices down to $40 per barrel, he told the legislators.

However, if Alaska taxes were raised again, the industry’s new momentum would be dampened. “We’d act like rational investors and look elsewhere,” he said.

Benji Johnson, CEO of BlueCrest Energy, a small independent developing a significant Cook Inlet oil and gas discovery, said his company doesn’t have pockets as deep as ConocoPhillips and is vulnerable to even small tweaks in taxes because of how the investment community would react.

There are still memories in the industry of Alaska’s high tax years prior to the 2013 change and big political fights in the Legislature over changes. There was also a public vote on SB 21 through a citizen initiative to repeal it. The law was upheld in that vote, although the victory was razor-thin.


“Even a little change is seen as a leak in the dam” Johnson told legislators. “Investors would say, ‘uh oh’. It sends a signal,” he said.

The current industry tax discussion in the Legislature, although still at a low level, centers around an $8-per-barrel production tax credit that was part of the tax changes made in SB 21. Most Alaska’s political leaders, particularly those elected to office since then, don’t know or remember the justification for the tax credits.

Some, like Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anch, see elimination of the tax credits as an answer to the state’s deficits.

Damian Bilbao, a BP Alaska vice president, told legislators that eliminating the production tax credits would raise the companies’ tax bill by $1.3 billion a year. Even a small change, like lowering the tax credit $1 per barrel, would add $163 million in yearly taxes. “We could keep multiple rigs running on the slope for that,” finding new oil, he said.

Ironically, Alaska faces a potential deficit mainly because the state’s Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, wants to pay a large Permanent Fund dividend to Alaska citizens. Dunleavy campaigned on a promise to essentially double the annual dividend, the Alaskans’ direct share of oil wealth, sending out checks of $3,000 per citizen compared with the $1,600 checks sent last year.

The large PFD payment creates a deficit of $1.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2020, the state budget year that starts July 1. Ending the oil production tax credit would fill most of this void, Democrats in the Legislature, like Wielechowski and Senate Democratic Minority Leader Tom Begich, D-Anch., have said.

There would be no deficit, however, if the PFD were paid at the same amount as last year. A $1,600 payment would leave enough revenue coming in to pay for a state budget at about the current level, according to Republican state Sen. Chris Birch, of Anchorage. Birch’s comments were in a debate in the state Senate.


The Senate has passed a budget based on the $3,000 dividend. The state House did not set an amount for the PFD in its budget.

Meanwhile, Jepsen told the House Resources Committee that ConocoPhillips is on schedule with its new slope developments, with Fiord West, a new project in the Alpine field scheduled to start up in August 2020 with 20,000 b/d of expected peak output and a second, GMT-2 in the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, expected to be producing in 2021 with an expected peak of 35,000 to 40,000 barrels per day.

Meanwhile, federal regulatory approvals are expected early next year for Willow, a larger NPR-A project with 100,000 barrels per day of expected peak output. ConocoPhillips is also assessing new discoveries near Willow including Willow West, a separate, nearby accumulation.

Assuming it proceeds, Willow, estimated to cost $4 billion to $6 billion is expected to be producing in 2024 or 2025, Jepsen said.

Other companies have new projects on the slope, too. Oil Search, a Papua New Guinea company, expects 120,000 barrels per day from Pikka, which is being developed in partnership with Repsol. Hilcorp Energy recently started production at Moose Pad, a new project in the Milne Point field, with peak output of 25,000 b/d expected. Hilcorp is also working to develop Liberty, an offshore project where 70,000 barrels per day is expected at peak.

Overall, there could be as much as $14 billion invested in new projects on the slope over the next few years.

In Cook Inlet, Johnson, of BlueCrest, said his company’s discovery at Cosmopolitan, while smaller than the recent North Slope finds, shows there is still potential for new discoveries in the Inlet even after more than 50 years of production.


Cosmopolitan’s discovered resources are estimated at 500 million barrels of oil in-place and 250 billion cubic feet of in-place natural gas, although only part of this would be actually produced, he said.

Tim Bradner is copublisher of the Alaska Legislative Digest and Alaska Economic Report

https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/oil-producers-see-bright-future-for-slope-but-worry-about/article_85e395d6-78df-11e9-8f49-6f4649cba529.html

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Brent Hamrick said:

Alaska is where we need to look. Shale is just a percentage of this US oil.

What does Alaska have to do with OPEC losing control.  LOL.

Do you work for Conoco ? Don't answer that .  Start a separate discussion on Alaska.  See ya over there.

Edited by Falcon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Falcon said:

What does Alaska have to do with OPEC losing control.  LOL.

Do you work for Conoco ?

Nope a bank and a student driving school. And i do not like the bank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

OPEC is not dead and wont die anytime soon.

Their power and influence has waned but not gone. If there was no OPEC , all the current OPEC members would have no discipline and it would create complete chaos and wreak havoc, think Iraq, Libya etc with a controlling central power figure gone, it became a schitt show!!!

OPEC as bad as it may sound is still need to provide, offer some sort of stability, real and or perceived,

 

With no OPEC Oil would probably stabilize between $56 to $64.

The world natural gas industry has no cartel.  Before US shale gas started Henry Hub gas traded around $14 mm/btu .  Now natural gas traded btw $2 to $4.50 mm btu and the producers make good margins.  Investment still strong. 

Edited by Falcon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

25 minutes ago, Falcon said:

With no OPEC Oil would probably stabilize between $56 to $64.

Think again. It will be a free for all and prices will plummet into the low 30's. Everyone will be trying to grab market share.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

49 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Think again...

That's a difficult task to ask of some folks here, clearly.

Without OPEC production restraint, particularly the KSA, the price of WTI would currently be trading at <$45 and on the express elevator down.

US shale oil represents <8% of total world oil production rates, yet its won? What exactly has it won? Upstream shale oil E&P's, public and private, are over $300 billion dollars in debt...what part of that is so difficult for people to understand? Without OPEC restraint American shale oil would be eating a shit sandwich at the moment. Worse than it already is, please see the chart, below.

Why is OPEC so "restrained" with regard to its short term production levels, do (intelligent) minds ask? Because it has computers! It knows the physical limitations of shale oil, it understands the difference in 2P reserve classifications and TRR reserves at some unknown future, much higher oil prices. Because it knows oil well economics, can read SEC filings, and sees how deeply in debt the shale oil industry is and where it is headed in the future. It knows how deeply in debt America is. The damn America shale oil industry owes 2 times what the KSA's total national debt is; google it!

OPEC is giving the US LTO industry just enough rope to hang itself. And that is EXACTLY what the US shale oil industry is doing. Hanging itself, please see chart below.

Shale oil has not "won" anything. Its gross mismanagement will, in 5-6 years, cause America to ultimately ... lose.

Wake up people. Quit with all the Trump loving, America first BS, OPEC-hating-at-all-cost garbage and look what is going to happen in just a few years as America's shale resources deplete. Think that is not going to happen? Take a look at the oldest shale oil play in America, the Eagle Ford. Its on its last legs. Only people with NO experience in the oil business believe this boom, has legs. Phfftttttt.

Shale oil is a speed bump along the long road of resource depletion. In the end, cheap oil wins, not expensive shale oil dependent on credit/debt.  

Is it un-American not to believe in the shale revolution? Its actually really un-American, and dumb, really dumb, to not want our last remaining hydrocarbon resources to be managed better. 

 

D-EjVuUWsAUaheg.png

Edited by Mike Shellman
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

Is it un-American not to believe in the shale revolution? Its actually really un-American, and dumb, really dumb, to not want our last remaining hydrocarbon resources to be managed better. 

It's not that it's un-American to believe in the Shale Revolution, I tend to look at the dollars (real dollars) that's being pissed away at the consumers expense. In the end-game, the investors and consumers will end up eating yet again a few hundred billion bux. But hey, we pumpin' mo' oil than ever...….sheeesh!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Mike Shellman said:

That's a difficult task to ask of some folks here, clearly.

Without OPEC production restraint, particularly the KSA, the price of WTI would currently be trading at <$45 and on the express elevator down.

US shale oil represents <8% of total world oil production rates, yet its won? What exactly has it won? Upstream shale oil E&P's, public and private, are over $300 billion dollars in debt...what part of that is so difficult for people to understand? Without OPEC restraint American shale oil would be eating a shit sandwich at the moment. Worse than it already is, please see the chart, below.

Why is OPEC so "restrained" with regard to its short term production levels, do (intelligent) minds ask? Because it has computers! It knows the physical limitations of shale oil, it understands the difference in 2P reserve classifications and TRR reserves at some unknown future, much higher oil prices. Because it knows oil well economics, can read SEC filings, and sees how deeply in debt the shale oil industry is and where it is headed in the future. It knows how deeply in debt America is. The damn America shale oil industry owes 2 times what the KSA's total national debt is; google it!

OPEC is giving the US LTO industry just enough rope to hang itself. And that is EXACTLY what the US shale oil industry is doing. Hanging itself, please see chart below.

Shale oil has not "won" anything. Its gross mismanagement will, in 5-6 years, cause America to ultimately ... lose.

Wake up people. Quit with all the Trump loving, America first BS, OPEC-hating-at-all-cost garbage and look what is going to happen in just a few years as America's shale resources deplete. Think that is not going to happen? Take a look at the oldest shale oil play in America, the Eagle Ford. Its on its last legs. Only people with NO experience in the oil business believe this boom, has legs. Phfftttttt.

Shale oil is a speed bump along the long road of resource depletion. In the end, cheap oil wins, not expensive shale oil dependent on credit/debt.  

Is it un-American not to believe in the shale revolution? Its actually really un-American, and dumb, really dumb, to not want our last remaining hydrocarbon resources to be managed better. 

 

D-EjVuUWsAUaheg.png

WOW ! I didn't realize Oil Price website attracted so many Bernie Sanders voters. 

 

Edited by Falcon
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW ! I didn't realize Oil Price website attracted so many Bernie Sanders voters. 

 WOW !  I didn't realize that pointing out that a lot of the shale oil E & P companies are spending more on developing and producing their properties than they are taking in from them makes them Bernie Sanders voters. Maybe people who have to pay the bills and make payroll every month?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I'm sorry.  I change my view.  OPEC will save producers. Oil prices will average $87 bbl in 2020.

Just my opinion.

Edited by Falcon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Falcon said:

WOW ! I didn't realize Oil Price website attracted so many Bernie Sanders voters. 

 

The oil shale industry makes Bernie Sanders look like a financial genius. They need to hire AOC to get them out of their finacial bind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The oil shale industry makes Bernie Sanders look like a financial genius. They need to hire AOC to get them out of their finacial bind!

 

b7a6469fb95a14d39850c97601adc4fd03173062b2610d56b843fbad61fc9dc3.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.