[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'E')nnui, you keep disqualifying sites that I reference, you are leaving me without sites.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'G')as shales on the other side of the coin are so massive and extensive we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to using up the potential drilling locations. Thus the decline in both is currently from low prices taking away the incentive to drill, but when prices go back up the oil shale potential will be very limited because the viable area they cover are much smaller geographically.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ')What OS is saying is that people are consuming just as much oil as they want and are not suffering to the extent implied by the loaded term "demand destruction". I'm surprised you can't even grasp the thesis.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 's')o isn't that in effect like giving people money to take out loans. How desperate can you get?

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')The thesis is flawed. It doesn't account for the ever increasing debt

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', ' ')I mean "spend it into the economy", which would have an indirect affect on ROI but not to those spending.

[onlooker]

Ennui, can you find anything legitimate to counter Monte's argument that real consumption did not keep up with projected consumption in the last few years? If not why besmirch the conclusion that demand destruction has occurred.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', ' ')I mean "spend it into the economy", which would have an indirect affect on ROI but not to those spending.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ')You do.[/b] But what you proceeded to do is backslide to Pstarr's position which is that people's quality of life is impaired in a significant way due to peak-oil, and that is the argument that doesn't wash.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ') But stick to that rather than trying to prove to us that people are being forced out of buying as much oil as they want at the present time.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'S')o maybe people are worried about the future and want to have some money on hand for emergency or worse times.

[onlooker]

Yes Monte, the productive economy is being hampered in diverse ways and yes P, all this is occurring contrary to what our friend Ennui claims or the useless mainstream media. One surprising simple method of noting this downturn is the rise in people on the govt. handout bandwagon as well as the number of people simply leaving the formal workforce. These symptoms are certainly not indicative of a healthy economy.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'M')onte, we have been talking about demand destruction here for a decades, social/infrastructure adaptation to unusual oil prices.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')I haven't been arguing that. I have been arguing that debt is masking reality and has been since the early 1970's.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ')But debt != doom. Not yet at least.

[dohboi]

I'm afraid, much as I generally like the cut of ennui's jib, that I'm with MQ on this one. I haven't been very impressed with many of Gail the Actuary's predictions or her general set of prejudices and influences. (Often a bit too...'oily'...)

[Tanada]

Here's the thing, at today's prices the companies still drilling in the Bakken are doing their very utmost to get the sweet spots because the average and sour spots just lose money fast and faster at $30/bbl. So look at that graph again and realize, when you are aiming at just the sweet spots and doing your very best to drill around the average spots and avoid the sour spots with every bit of skill, technology and luck at your disposal, what should the average production per well be doing?

Productivity per well should be going up right now, not grinding its way slowly downward. Look again at the graph,
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/upl ... BPF-LT.jpg


Now I must point out that from what ROCKMAN has told us about oil companies some of that drilling will be mandatory to keep lease options current under the lease agreements, and it is also possible that some of the highest flow wells are being deliberately choked back to preserve some of their output for the time when prices have recovered somewhat instead of max production into the low price market. However choking back production can only be done by companies with excellent lines of credit or large bank accounts, the ones operating on junk bonds have to have cash flow or file bankruptcy. As the saying goes, if I owe the bank $100,000.00 they got me where it hurts, but if I owe them $100,000,000.00 they can't afford to let me go bankrupt and eat all that loss if it can be avoided by any set of tricks they can come up with. even if that means the bank negotiates to accept interest only payments for a year or three on the debt they hold.

[ennui2]

Gail's implication in 2007 was that the peak is followed not by an extended plateau but a valley, hence Hubbert's curve. (It's that underlying cloud of doom that provides bloggers like Gail with regular internet eyeballs. It's the slogan/rhetorical question of "How will you ride the slide?") That hasn't been the case. Bakken has been on a plateau since 2008, which is really quite impressive.

Her summation was that bakken (which is kind of more of a short-hand for fracking in general) would not significantly change the post-peak dynamic. She was wrong. You can point to the semantics of whether bakken peaks or not, but the contribution of fracking DID significantly impact the supply/demand dynamic, regardless of whether it was juiced by easy credit or not.