World "Awash" in oil. Sec Perry says Goldman Sachs wrong.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/2/2019 at 7:12 AM, D Coyne said:

Interesting,

So we have 4 wells out of about 24,000 wells that have been completed in the Eagle Ford.  I look at basin wide averages by year.  It is not clear that the cost of the refrack will pay out in most cases.

Not forgetting, simply accounting for the fact that at present coal to liquids and natural gas to liquids are not competitive with petroleum fuels refined from crude plus condensate.  The discoveries shown in the chart correspond with conventional crude plus condensate discoveries, so far about 2600 Gb of conventional C+C have been discovered as of the end of 2017 (conventional excludes crude with API gravity less than ten and tight oil.)

Any idea how much of the World's light and middle distillate fuel is produced from coal and natural gas?  

Pretty sure the problem is the cost of production from non-crude sources.

So, fossil fuel would maybe cost more. By that time technology for renewables and all the other options will have gradually improved and power in place also. So, no problem in the future. 

[D Coyne + 305]

53 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So, fossil fuel would maybe cost more. By that time technology for renewables and all the other options will have gradually improved and power in place also. So, no problem in the future. 

Ronwagn,

Perhaps no problem, depends in part on climate sensitivity to carbon emissions, estimates have a wide range from 1.5 to 5 C change in global temperatures for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, climate scientists think 3 C is the best estimate, though I know many here don't trust science (physics seems to apply only in geophysics, in atmospheric physics, the geophysicists just don't get it. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding LTO! I have a vested interest. From my angle, with no hard data to show you, but merely thinking as hard as I can in order to preserve my investment capital, it would appear that the sweet spots are going to be almost completely exploited by 2024. The smart guys have designated sweet spots as Tier-1 property. One of the few exciting developments in this business is that occasionally some crazy guy gets it in his head to drill in a spot where the wildcat was a stinker, and occasionally--probably due to newer completion techniques that have been described above--a giant well is hit (Occidental just had one with an IP of about 5,000 blls/d in the Delaware sub-basin; Marathon had a couple very close to that in Dunn county ND). In "normal" times, that would create a flurry of excitement. In this current time, it really doesn't. Why not? Twenty-eight frackers have declared bankruptcy this year. Between 2020-2022, approximately $137B of debt comes due. At this current price of oil, only the sweet spots drilled by very large-scale companies make much money (Exxon stock has been basically dead money). If one assumes that the shale will be fully depleted by 2024, an alternative source has to take its place. Offshore? With shallow-water fields taking 3 years to come online and deepwater about 6 years, there's going to be quite a shortfall. The Teslas seem to be catching on fire. It takes a lot of cobalt and zinc and lithium to build a large storage battery to handle solar and wind down times. How you project the energy future depends on your mindset: I think we'll see fairly inexpensive re-frack jobs in certain areas; others think that's nonsense. "They" (those with a vested interest) say that 60% of the old wells up in the Bakken are great candidates for refracking. Is that true? Who knows. Me? I think we're going to look back on this time as a period of incredible waste. What if we'd (as an oil and gas community) merely exercised the discipline to drill carefully, working within some sort of budget, restricting flaring and letting the price of a barrel of oil reach and maintain its "normal" level of profitability? In the Permian, they're paying people to take away natural gas--by far the cleanest fossil fuel to burn--and billions of dollars worth is being flared. I've made this comparison before but I'm getting long in the tooth so I sometimes repeat my anecdotes: Coffee beans are easy to grow, harvest, roast and serve up. Oil requires a million years at a certain precise temperature and pressure and is also hard to get out of the ground. If you were to roll a new oil barrel into a Starbucks and have them fill it with latte, it would cost about $4600. Talking about trying to wrap your head around something! Yes, the world is awash in oil, but it hasn't been profitable to exploit for several years now--we have, in effect, been in a recession since 2016. The KSA needs $75-80; Iran $185; US shale ? -- probably $75; Vaca Meurto ? -- who in the world is going to try for it at this time?; the Buzios?--it's a six-year lag, so what is it worth? A fair market value for crude oil would take care of environmental remediation. And when a well begins to die it sucks in salt and water. In that salt, in a lot of places, is lithium. For example, in the Paradox Basin, lithium is just about everywhere. All energy sources are going to have to learn to "live with each other," kind of like being married to a wife who hits you every day with a frying pan but the sex is good. Old oil wells can supply many of the rare earth minerals that are needed for batteries. Then, if they are amenable, they can be refracked and we can make another run at it. As you can tell, this is really nothing more than Sunday morning musing to keep from reading in the New York Times about the pending impeachment process whereby the Democrats meet behind locked doors and grill some poor sucker about what happened in Ukraine and the Republicans are all thinking about moving to Florida with the Prez. So, if we have a Civil War in the United States, I think the whole thing will be answered: All the good basins are in Republican states and run by Republicans and the Teslas are all driven by Democrats or RINO's wearing bad suits under a shitty haircut. You can see that by now I've got this thing pretty well worked out. I really appreciate the couch time.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

So, if we have a Civil War in the United States, I think the whole thing will be answered: All the good basins are in Republican states and run by Republicans and the Teslas are all driven by Democrats or RINO's wearing bad suits under a shitty haircut. You can see that by now I've got this thing pretty well worked out. I really appreciate the couch time.

Haha fantastic stuff 

[Jabbar + 465]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Douglas,

I agree, though typically the daily vs cumulative lines tend to be parallel in a given basin. generally the function is not a straight line so any assumption that it is will tend to overestimate EUR.  Typically I fit an Arps hyperbolic to first couple of years of data, then assume when hyperbolic gets to 10% effective annual decline rate that terminal decline from that point is at 10% per year with well shut in at 5 to 10 b/d output (depends on oil price assumption for scenario).  For 2016 Eagle Ford average well, I get an EUR about 230 kbo with 5 bopd at end of well life and a 12.5% terminal decline assumption after 9 years (cumulative output at 207 kb at that point).

Boat,

Weekly EIA data is never revised, only the monthly and annual data is revised.

CONOCO INVESTOR DAY

This month Conoco is having an investor day.

* They will discuss there aggressive production plans for 2020

* They will detail their future plans for their shale development in Eagleford, Bakken, and Permian. 

* They will discuss their use of technology to increase Productivity, EUR, Cost Reduction and Profit. 

they will not be talking about Peak Oil Supply . . . . it doesn't exist.

 

[D Coyne + 305]

4 hours ago, Jabbar said:

CONOCO INVESTOR DAY

This month Conoco is having an investor day.

* They will discuss there aggressive production plans for 2020

* They will detail their future plans for their shale development in Eagleford, Bakken, and Permian. 

* They will discuss their use of technology to increase Productivity, EUR, Cost Reduction and Profit. 

they will not be talking about Peak Oil Supply . . . . it doesn't exist.

 

You believe the stuff at investor presentations?  LOL.

You own a lot of real estate in central Florida as well.?

[Jabbar + 465]

14 hours ago, D Coyne said:

You own a lot of real estate in central Florida as well.?

Hilarious post ! Almost as funny as your previous slight about you have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell me. Very creative mind.

You must be the life of the party. I want to party with YOU and your 20,000 graphs. Did you spend your whole weekend posting graphs on this forum. Sounds like fun weekend to me.

You should listen to Conoco presentation you might learn something.

Don't stop posting it provides some consolace and hope (false) to those that lost jobs or over invested in those shale companies that believed oil would be $100 again and rising. 

Most of the Peak Supply cult of the last decade believed there was plenty of oil . . .  but that it was too expensive to lift.

Technology has changed that. 

Oil price can be propped up with a million or two excess barrels a day. That all changes when their is 3, 4, or 5 million excess. 

Please reconsider putting my EUR assumptions in your model that you spent a lifetime to develop.  Your reluctance to do to speaks volumes to your lack of conviction.

A step change in technology changes everything.  Conoco will discuss the direction of shale . 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Jabbar

[D Coyne + 305]

20 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding LTO! I have a vested interest. From my angle, with no hard data to show you, but merely thinking as hard as I can in order to preserve my investment capital, it would appear that the sweet spots are going to be almost completely exploited by 2024. The smart guys have designated sweet spots as Tier-1 property. One of the few exciting developments in this business is that occasionally some crazy guy gets it in his head to drill in a spot where the wildcat was a stinker, and occasionally--probably due to newer completion techniques that have been described above--a giant well is hit (Occidental just had one with an IP of about 5,000 blls/d in the Delaware sub-basin; Marathon had a couple very close to that in Dunn county ND). In "normal" times, that would create a flurry of excitement. In this current time, it really doesn't. Why not? Twenty-eight frackers have declared bankruptcy this year. Between 2020-2022, approximately $137B of debt comes due. At this current price of oil, only the sweet spots drilled by very large-scale companies make much money (Exxon stock has been basically dead money). If one assumes that the shale will be fully depleted by 2024, an alternative source has to take its place. Offshore? With shallow-water fields taking 3 years to come online and deepwater about 6 years, there's going to be quite a shortfall. The Teslas seem to be catching on fire. It takes a lot of cobalt and zinc and lithium to build a large storage battery to handle solar and wind down times. How you project the energy future depends on your mindset: I think we'll see fairly inexpensive re-frack jobs in certain areas; others think that's nonsense. "They" (those with a vested interest) say that 60% of the old wells up in the Bakken are great candidates for refracking. Is that true? Who knows. Me? I think we're going to look back on this time as a period of incredible waste. What if we'd (as an oil and gas community) merely exercised the discipline to drill carefully, working within some sort of budget, restricting flaring and letting the price of a barrel of oil reach and maintain its "normal" level of profitability? In the Permian, they're paying people to take away natural gas--by far the cleanest fossil fuel to burn--and billions of dollars worth is being flared. I've made this comparison before but I'm getting long in the tooth so I sometimes repeat my anecdotes: Coffee beans are easy to grow, harvest, roast and serve up. Oil requires a million years at a certain precise temperature and pressure and is also hard to get out of the ground. If you were to roll a new oil barrel into a Starbucks and have them fill it with latte, it would cost about $4600. Talking about trying to wrap your head around something! Yes, the world is awash in oil, but it hasn't been profitable to exploit for several years now--we have, in effect, been in a recession since 2016. The KSA needs $75-80; Iran $185; eUS shale ? -- probably $75; Vaca Meurto ? -- who in the world is going to try for it at this time?; the Buzios?--it's a six-year lag, so what is it worth? A fair market value for crude oil would take care of environmental remediation. And when a well begins to die it sucks in salt and water. In that salt, in a lot of places, is lithium. For example, in the Paradox Basin, lithium is just about everywhere. All energy sources are going to have to learn to "live with each other," kind of like being married to a wife who hits you every day with a frying pan but the sex is good. Old oil wells can supply many of the rare earth minerals that are needed for batteries. Then, if they are amenable, they can be refracked and we can make another run at it. As you can tell, this is really nothing more than Sunday morning musing to keep from reading in the New York Times about the pending impeachment process whereby the Democrats meet behind locked doors and grill some poor sucker about what happened in Ukraine and the Republicans are all thinking about moving to Florida with the Prez. So, if we have a Civil War in the United States, I think the whole thing will be answered: All the good basins are in Republican states and run by Republicans and the Teslas are all driven by Democrats or RINO's wearing bad suits under a shitty haircut. You can see that by now I've got this thing pretty well worked out. I really appreciate the couch time.

Gerry,

Not a lot of refracks will be profitable at sub 60 per bo. Maybe at 100+ it will make money. 

I agree sweet spots will be drilled up by 2024 oil prices will need to rise to make money in tier 2 and lower. 

[D Coyne + 305]

2 hours ago, Jabbar said:

Hilarious post ! Almost as funny as your previous slight about you have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell me. Very creative mind.

You must be the life of the party. I want to party with YOU and your 20,000 graphs. Did you spend your whole weekend posting graphs on this forum. Sounds like fun weekend to me.

You should listen to Conoco presentation you might learn something.

Don't stop posting it provides some consolace and hope (false) to those that lost jobs or over invested in those shale companies that believed oil would be $100 again and rising. 

Most of the Peak Supply cult of the last decade believed there was plenty of oil . . .  but that it was too expensive to lift.

Technology has changed that. 

Oil price can be propped up with a million or two excess barrels a day. That all changes when their is 3, 4, or 5 million excess. 

Please reconsider putting my EUR assumptions in your model that you spent a lifetime to develop.  Your reluctance to do to speaks volumes to your lack of conviction.

A step change in technology changes everything.  Conoco will discuss the direction of shale . 

As before I prefer realistic assumptions,

Data suggests EUR is  not likely to increase by a factor of 2 as you seem to believe. Keep reading investor presentations good fantasy. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

All my stocks are oil and gas companies. You must be VERY diligent. I've seen investor presentations that over promis in the 25% area and others that under promis by 25%. I wouldn't paint every investor presentation with the same bad brush ... added to a few years of quarterly results and oil price / currency exchange and it's a good metric for honesty. 

A double of on production reserves would imply a halfing of capex or a very sharp rise in production or a doubling of earnings relative to oil prices over the quarter (depending on how many wells are at that doubled resources point)... alot of math to do on a massive company.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

EUR's on these shale wells are definitely curtailed by the basic physics of the thing: 1) Getting oil out of fractured rock, 2) Even in over-pressurized zones, the IP flush creates a pressure sink, 3) And even with very long laterals, fracturing takes place along a finite tangent to the drill bore. In the most brilliant light one can shed on LTO, the fracture of shale a short distance out from the drilling string represents a form of last hurrah in the continental US. The staggering thing is that it has advanced to this stage: drill pads, rigs on tracks, quick drilling and completion times, long laterals. And all this while there are quite a number of conventional sites available to exploit, but those old chugalug conventional wells aren't very interesting to drill, at least to the new wave of oilmen. We're going through a crazy time, where a little Swedish girl takes over the imagination of a gullible world, and when it is possible to read two totally opposing views on climate change in different, well-accepted newspapers, and then watch the same thing on different television networks. There is a book out, "The Climate Casino," whereby a fellow did not real research other than harvest opinions of others, and then built a case for remediation. People read and watch this stuff. Whole companies are making decisions on this stuff. The CEO of BP made an ecclesiastical confession about the sins of Big Oil. The little girl from Sweden, in telling her tale, has created a larger carbon footprint than 99% of the young women her age. These movie stars that promulgate a manmade climate change scenario fly Netjets or private jets. In his book, Richard Branson felt compelled to scold the rest of us, but bragged three pages later that he flew on his private Gulfstream over a million miles a year. Al Gore does the same thing. The entire oil and gas industry is hunkering down, doing these short-term projects, not exploring much . . . except for Russia, which in conjunction with China is basically taking over the Venezuelan oil business through debt load. Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Rosneft is on it. They're also purportedly after the Buzios Field off the coast of Brazil. In the meantime, we've laid down 250 rigs in the last year. No American company is after the Buzios. Chevron more or less abandoned Venezuela . . . concentrating instead on burning through one drill bit after another in storming the Delaware sub-basin. Why am I, a common man, laying out this well-known scenario? Because in my judgment shale drilling has created its own mythical serpent that can survive only by devouring its own tail. Getting oil out of a rock follows the same premise as not being able to get blood from a turnip. The fact that we can indeed get oil from a rock is living testimony to the ingenuity of American oil and gas guys, and that's no small thing. The Parent-Child issue in the Permian has been supposedly mitigated by drilling all six or eight wells on a 1280 tract at one time . . . but there's still going to be a massive pressure sink. Near-fracturing is improving IP's, but will it improve EUR's? In the final analysis, the shale frenzy has prevented the United States from being held hostage by Saudi Arabia. But the old adage that the greatest strength is also the greatest weakness may well be true here too. In listening to the hype, worrying about EV's and wind and solar and how that might affect this thing of peak oil demand, the oil industry in America has taken its eye off the long game. It has lost its faith in remediation by installation of scrubbers on vehicles, carbon neutral devices, a possible spontaneous turnaround in the direction the climate seems to be going. And while I know this comment is going to bring down the wrath of this board, there isn't all that much wrong with a carbon tax on pleasure vehicles: private jets and yachts. it chaps my ass to see Leonardo DiCaprio hanging out with the little Swedish girl and then entertaining Sean Penn on his yacht. Or Al Gore and Richard Branson lecturing the rest of us, racking up millions of miles in their Gulfstreams. I have nothing against capitalism; I just hate hypocrisy. This little speechifying of mine again is nothing more than therapy. No one is asking, but my strong advice would be for Chevron, Occidental, Exxon, BP, Hess, Marathon and RDS collaborate in buying the Buzios, along with the debt load Venezuela owes to the Chinese and Russians, start their six-year track toward bringing those resources online. Because as much as I worshipped George Mitchell, Aubrey McClendon, Tom Ward and Mark Pappas, the amount of oil that tombstone rock will cough up--no matter how hard it is goosed--is finite. We'll have run through this by 2024. And then what? 

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

As before I prefer realistic assumptions,

Data suggests EUR is  not likely to increase by a factor of 2 as you seem to believe. Keep reading investor presentations good fantasy. 

CONOCO INVESTOR DAY

This month Conoco is having an investor day.

* They will discuss there aggressive production plans for 2020

* They will detail their future plans for their shale development in Eagleford, Bakken, and Permian. 

* They will discuss their use of technology to increase Productivity, EUR, Cost Reduction and Profit. 

they will not be talking about Peak Oil Supply . . . . it doesn't exist.

[Jabbar + 465]

CONOCO INVESTOR DAY

This month Conoco is having an investor day.

* They will discuss there aggressive production plans for 2020

* They will detail their future plans for their shale development in Eagleford, Bakken, and Permian. 

* They will discuss their use of technology to increase Productivity, EUR, Cost Reduction and Profit. 

they will not be talking about Peak Oil Supply . . . . it doesn't exist.

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

As before I prefer realistic assumptions,

Data suggests EUR is  not likely to increase by a factor of 2 as you seem to believe. Keep reading investor presentations good fantasy. 

New York Times Says Flood of New Oil Production

Projects lower oil prices 

What's bigger.  "Awash" or "FLOOD"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/energy-environment/oil-supply.html

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Eia  stocks total petroleum and products look good to me. Steadily rising with consumption and population long term flat over last 2 years oct 30 . Low oil prices keeps recession away, fun stuff (motor sports) cheap, inflation down and demand up until the cycle breaks ... and a spike makes my oil stocks fly. fine with me. 

Also in my view all this "offline oil" is going somewhere so I dont see major threats of iran or Venezuela coming back online.  That's like saying theres no blood diamonds or conflict gold .. or illegal drugs passing borders. 

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

New York Times Says Flood of New Oil Production

Projects lower oil prices 

What's bigger.  "Awash" or "FLOOD"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/energy-environment/oil-supply.html

If we see oil prices drop we might see less output from US tight oil, we will see.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

52 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Also in my view all this "offline oil" is going somewhere so I dont see major threats of iran or Venezuela coming back online.  That's like saying theres no blood diamonds or conflict gold .. or illegal drugs passing borders. 

Hmmmm. I'm not sure about Iranian oil, Rob. It seems to me that they've tried about everything, including ghost carriers. As to Venezuelan oil, their production is down to under a million barrels a day. Additionally, it's all sour crude and their H2S separators aren't all that perky. My biggest concern for the US is that we are "sleeping" through some of this, mainly because of all this climate change propaganda. I've no doubt that the climate is changing, just that mankind has much to do with it. Anyway, as I have mentioned before, Putin is best pals with Iran, and China and Russia hold so much debt from Venezuela that every last drop of their oil goes to paying interest. It's just a matter of time until Russia and China take over the world's largest reserve of oil--Venezuela, which is quite a bit more than KSA. I have been watching this for fifty years and I have to say, the world fossil fuel industry is changing at its fastest pace ever. Shale is going to poop out in about another five years. And then what? We've passed on the Buzios. We're sanctioning Venezuela. The Saudis have how much left in reserves? Anyway, it's all sour and their separation facilities have been shown to be vulnerable to low-rent weapons. The Chinese are desperate for energy. They have entered into a situation with Russia whereby Putin builds an LNG pipeline down the spine of Pakistan and the only tradeoff is that Russia shares a warm water port on the Arabian Sea with China. They're getting very cozy. The blood diamonds analogy is a good one.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

Ok, call me ignorant:(most likely true)

Isn't majority of Venezuela's thick tar goo off shore?  Most of which is equivalent to the tar sands... a mining operation in Alberta?

Just how exactly is one expected to extract this goo?

[Jabbar + 465]

4 hours ago, D Coyne said:

If we see oil prices drop we might see less output from US tight oil, we will see.

Two shale producers. One produces oil under 30 dollars. Another produces oil 45 to 55 dollars.

The transition is about to start.  The Reserves move to the strong hands. 

While the consolidation takes place and the U.S. constructs VLCC oil export terminals oil will trade in the current range. 

Afterward real competition will prevail.  NY Times think the four countries mentioned increase oil over 1 million barrels day next year and another 1 million the following year.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jabbar + 465]

48 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ok, call me ignorant:(most likely true)

Isn't majority of Venezuela's thick tar goo off shore?  Most of which is equivalent to the tar sands... a mining operation in Alberta?

Just how exactly is one expected to extract this goo?

No

Offshore most likely same as neighbor Guyana which is high quality.

The Vz onshore oil is from the Orinoco belt. It is very heavy but is does flow, as in liquid.

Unlike the Canadian "tar" sands.  Which has a consistency of peanut butter.

https://www.southportland.org/files/3713/9387/3165/Heavy_Oil_and_Tar_Sands.pdf

Edited November 4, 2019 by Jabbar

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Gerry - If you had to guess how much would Iran be pumping then storing or selling. It's been a long while of sanctions. I would like to hear people's ideas on that (Off topic tho). As for the rest of the reply if we Canadians are sol on pipelines and you Americans are investing in short term production then you'd prefer moving away from oil to not be caught short on oil after shale runs dry? ... or your saying it's too late already and feast will turn to famine and electric will help but may not be enough? I'm just curious to your view. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

5 hours ago, Jabbar said:

No

Offshore most likely same as neighbor Guyana which is high quality.

The Vz onshore oil is from the Orinoco belt. It is very heavy but is does flow, as in liquid.

Unlike the Canadian "tar" sands.  Which has a consistency of peanut butter.

https://www.southportland.org/files/3713/9387/3165/Heavy_Oil_and_Tar_Sands.pdf

Thanks for the link.  I have been looking for such a link.  Usually one gets mumbo jumbo dumbo when searching for anything real(engineering) related content. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 11/3/2019 at 11:12 PM, ronwagn said:

So, fossil fuel would maybe cost more. By that time technology for renewables and all the other options will have gradually improved and power in place also. So, no problem in the future. 

Ron,

No offense intended, but I have a problem with the idea that a new technology will arise and whatever we are discussing becomes viable or profitable. The shale oil crowd constantly tells us that Big Oil will take over the shale oil game and with their access to new technology, all problems associated with LTO will be resolved.

At this point in time access to money = access to technology. The small LTO players HAD access to money (borrowed) and access to any technology that the big players had. The problems persisted.

Yes, technology is evolving all the time, but if you can’t define the emerging technologies that will supposedly mitigate all the problems, regardless of the industry we are discussing, it is simply wishful thinking. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

55 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Ron,

No offense intended, but I have a problem with the idea that a new technology will arise and whatever we are discussing becomes viable or profitable. The shale oil crowd constantly tells us that Big Oil will take over the shale oil game and with their access to new technology, all problems associated with LTO will be resolved.

At this point in time access to money = access to technology. The small LTO players HAD access to money (borrowed) and access to any technology that the big players had. The problems persisted.

Yes, technology is evolving all the time, but if you can’t define the emerging technologies that will supposedly mitigate all the problems, regardless of the industry we are discussing, it is simply wishful thinking. 

There is plenty of existing technology to meet our needs, the advances were just thrown in, but there are always some advances. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I agree that it is out there and evolving, I would just like it identified or defined.