[dashster]

Saw someone say this in an article comment and found the source - a Bloomberg article quoting Mark Lewis and Peter Oppitzhauser, analysts at Kepler Cheuvreux SA in Paris : "U.S. shale, for instance, accounted for about 20 percent of world investment in oil in 2013 and supplied only four percent of global production"

However, it probably should compare current investment with production from that investment, not total production which is benefiting from past investment. But given the higher decline rates of tight oil production, it wouldn't be a perfect comparison since I think a tight oil field will produce less versus it's first year, than a conventional oil field will.

[Subjectivist]

If it really took 20 percent of money investments and based on stock reaction people are bailing out of shale rapidly it won't be long before the ripples gather into a Tsunami.

[dolanbaker]

Maybe it'll be replaced by increases in fuel economy and fewer miles driven, then its loss will not really be noticed.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'F')ewer miles means less commerce.

[ROCKMAN]

According to the EIA oil from the shales during Dec 2014 is 5.24 million bopd. Based upon the best guess for global production that represents about 5.8%. And then there's always the question about what "oil" means but we'll let that dog along. Some of that 5million bopd is from a lot of shale wells that have passed thru their high decline rate phase and some are still dropping like a rock. Again, splitting hairs a bit to worry much about IMHO.

So higher oil prices led to a lot of shale wells drilled with the subsequent production increase. Lower oil prices = fewer wells drilled and thus fewer new high rate producers. So where do we end up at in 12 months? Take a guess. But it doesn't matter what anyone here guesses: we should have a good idea in the next 6 to 12 months. In the mean time let the war of words carry forth and may the victor be suitably rewarded. LOL.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Fuel-economy increases have already been wrung out of the system by modern aerodynamic auto design. Any further mileage improvement (at the expense of car-body weight/safety and slower speeds) would decrease worker productivity. Reigning paradigm finds that Not Acceptable.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '
')
Hello. This is the 21st century, not the Mad Men era. Not all "commerce" involves physical products moving around. How many "miles" does it take to buy a track from iTunes? How many jobs can be executed by telecommuters?

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')utler Cleveland notes, “A dollar's worth of steel requires 93,000 BTU to produce in the United States; a dollar's worth of financial services uses 9,500 BTU."

[Poordogabone]

Aside from a few hybrids modern cars our NOT aerodynamic.
It is obvious that they push a ton of air. It is obvious as well that marketing cars that look like big toys is much more lucrative than slick aerodynamic ones.

[Tanada]

Pstarr look at your own graph, horsepower has grown substantially for a modest increase in weight. In car terms that means a formerly modest 4 cylinder engine can provide as much horsepower as the V-6 of the 1990's era cars. The Dodge heavy duty trucks with their V-10 engines have declined and been replaced with higher horsepower but lighter V-8 versions. Total horsepower went way up, weight increased modestly and since 2000 model year this has been paying off in steadily improving fuel economy across the board.

[Withnail]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')America was not built on downloads and the so-called "digital economy" is mostly a diversion for wealthy white people. The rest of the world uses bittorrents

[dolanbaker]

Building smaller cars, ain't rocket science!
We've been doing it for years in Europe & Japan and a lot of other places as well.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'P')starr look at your own graph, horsepower has grown substantially for a modest increase in weight. In car terms that means a formerly modest 4 cylinder engine can provide as much horsepower as the V-6 of the 1990's era cars. The Dodge heavy duty trucks with their V-10 engines have declined and been replaced with higher horsepower but lighter V-8 versions. Total horsepower went way up, weight increased modestly and since 2000 model year this has been paying off in steadily improving fuel economy across the board.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '[')img]http://www.epa.gov/otaq/images/fe-trends/2014/f03-500px.png[/img]