by AdamB » Thu 17 Nov 2022, 11:50:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')ometimes the l9ng trend is easier to predict than the shorter term fluctuations.
Fracking, like the Grden Revolution, threw off various predictions but did not make the premise itself wrong, just the timing.
A point often claimed. Is there a further explanation for how fracking, a technique patently in the late 1940's, that Hubbert himself wrote a paper on in 1955 or so discussing the first 100,000 completions using this technique, "threw off" anyone but the historically or oil field uninformed? The USGS, correctly, wrote that 2/3's of ALL hydraulic fracturing had taken place in the 20th century....not the 21st. They knew this, and wrote it down, circa 2015 or so. It was quite common knowledge even before that. For anyone interested anyway. So...the only people it might be a surprise to are those who didn't bother to do the research. That explicitly can't be Hubbert, as he was publishing on it the same time he was doing his peak oil calls. So a single oilfield completion technique in no way explains either the timing of US oil resurgence or its ultimate cause. Folks unfamiliar with the practice like to claim it is so, but it is a tell as to their level of understanding of history, the oil field, its common practices and procedures, and nothing more.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', ' ')
Tink about the oft cited phrase something like "human ingenuity and flexibility will find a way, it always does". This too is a prediction, based on past performance, by the lucky survivors.
This is such a common idea that the FEC has a regulation about it, just to remind folks. Past performance is not indicative of future results. SEC Rule 156. Not much related to survivors, but the same idea would seem to apply.