[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;Oil prices collapsed and will never see a sustainable rise." New definition of "collapsed": the current price of oil is higher then the average inflation adjusted price of oil for 20 years from 1985 to 2005.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asg70', 'T')his thread represents the sound of hairs being split and goalposts moving.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ''')The Permian?' Cute. You sound just like an oil-company insider.

[tita]

Well, the 50% drop in price in late 2014 was technically a collapse. Even if the stabilized price (50$) is higher than the inflation adjusted mean of 1985-2005. The fall went even further to sub 30$. Still, global economy is not in recession and wasn't the main trigger for this drop (although slowing growth in China didn't help).

But for shale oil. Well, we know it can't be developped with sub 30$ price, but is quite resilient around 50$. Anyway, we can't say that shale producers, oil services and investors got through it without damages. It seems that they are getting up since the price got back higher in the last 6 months. Still, we don't really know fast and how high production can grow with 50$... The correlation between rig count fluctuations and production is not that simple. In short, shale oil has to prove it can live with half the price it was when it became successfull.

And yeah, I doubt it can. But this is just my opinion.

[tita]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'h')ttp://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2017/03/saudi-arabia-and-shale-oil-war-that.html

[asg70]

There's no debate over whether ANY oil is sustainable. It's not. The only debate is how long it (and by extension, BAU) will last. On that point, peakers have been, let's say, a little over-eager in their predictions, by a factor of a decade and counting.

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n that point, peakers have been, let's say, a little over-eager in their predictions, by a factor of a decade and counting.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tita', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'h')ttp://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2017/03/saudi-arabia-and-shale-oil-war-that.html

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asg70', 'T')here's no debate over whether ANY oil is sustainable. It's not. The only debate is how long it (and by extension, BAU) will last. On that point, peakers have been, let's say, a little over-eager in their predictions, by a factor of a decade and counting.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n that point, peakers have been, let's say, a little over-eager in their predictions, by a factor of a decade and counting.

[asg70]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '
')If the math that was done by folks like M Hubbert King and Campbell were based off of conventional reservoirs, to me you can't complain about the math just the lack of vision in predicting at what lengths we would go to in order to get the black stuff.

[wildbourgman]

I'll reply to both of you folks here at the same time. First I take AdamB, I'm not saying that you don't count some of the oil. What I'm saying is that if I tell you that my math indicated that a 100 barrel tank will be half empty when you take 50 bbls out of it and then you say your wrong because there is a second tank over in the corner that you didn't account for. Ok well, your right, they overlooked the other tank, but they possibly didn't account for it with good reason and now that reason is being mitigated. I also think the jury is still out if the mitigation that allows us to count the second tank is correct. I think that the price will eventually be reflected in the difference as other conventional supplies continue to deplete, as well as the severe depletion rate of shale resources.

asg70, I'm not a fast crash proponent unless you attach some other catalyst to it such as a war, geological or weather event. I do know that cheap and easy reservoirs deplete and they are replaced by more expensive and not so easy reservoirs. That's been the nature of the oil business for a long time. I really liked my crack addict analogy.

"Good thing crack addicts aren't in charge of finding oil" AdamB, really, brother what oilfield do you work in? Maybe we don't have a bunch of crack heads, but you'll find several vices amongst my co workers. How about that Rock? and yes bluebell ice cream is on the list of vices.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman" I do know that cheap and easy reservoirs deplete and they are replaced by more expensive and not so easy reservoirs.
[/quote]

Absolutely. And those cheap and easy were gone by 1901. You've been raised in a world of harder oil, oil that couldn't even be accessed under new technologies came along to find more difficult oil. For some reason, people always talk about harder oil without going back into the history of the oil field to find the truth. But in most cases we are talking about folks who don't have an interest in the history, the ins and outs and hows and whys of oil engineering or petroleum geology, most peakers are really just looking for the rationalization to get the hunting cabin, buy a hobby farm, collect some more guns and gold, perpetually short the markets, whatever. And it hasn't worked out so well, which is why places like this are mostly about climate doom (which isn't near as good, because it will just take so darn long).

[quote="wildbourgman', '
')That's been the nature of the oil business for a long time. I really liked my crack addict analogy.

"Good thing crack addicts aren't in charge of finding oil" AdamB, really, brother what oilfield do you work in? Maybe we don't have a bunch of crack heads, but you'll find several vices amongst my co workers. How about that Rock? and yes bluebell ice cream is on the list of vices.

[spike]

Actually, AdamB, Andrew Carnegie thought, in 1861, that oil production would peak and cease. He bought some oil planning to cash in on higher prices, and did make a profit, but was a little off in his timing.

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't work in the oil field. But based on the drug testing requirements on the rigs nowadays, I don't think anyone has any need to worry about crackheads being on one. One of the reasons the industry still can pay good money, it demands people who are clean and know how to actually work...a skill in this country that doesn't appear to be what it once was.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'A')ctually, AdamB, Andrew Carnegie thought, in 1861, that oil production would peak and cease. He bought some oil planning to cash in on higher prices, and did make a profit, but was a little off in his timing.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uring a boom where competition for employees is fierce you see very lax and very few random drug screens and the random drug screens seem to pick folks that everyone knows can pass. People that have expertise that's highly sought after often get special treatment even after failing drug screens and alcohol test

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That being said my experiences generally went to the reputable contractors out there, those that had proven track records and understood the downside of not adhering to policy.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can also assure you that even some reputable companies that "talk the talk" really well will make exceptions for a golden child when deemed necessary. I rather work for the ones that walk the walk.