by Aaron » Wed 21 May 2008, 19:54:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you seriously this ignorant and unwilling to admit your wrong?
Yes of course.
But if we are not talking about new finds in previously unexplored territory, then what's the point of your "limited 3d" argument?
As an industry insider I'm sure you are aware that some areas are not good candidates for exploration, based on the geologic environment. I'm trying to recall the last time I heard about some wildcat just drilling exploratory sites without 3D first, but I can't remember that far back.
Every potential new site I have heard of in a decade has had 3D. Much of the remaining area just isn't likely to contain any significant oil deposits so... no seismic.
As you are no doubt already aware.
Trying to say that only a small percent of the
gross land mass has had 3D surveys is a very misleading thing to post, since most of the unsurveyed areas don't have the geology to support conventional oil deposits.
Oil companies are always trotting out that tired argument. We can't find more oil because the greenies won't let us drill nature preserves & parks.
I call double secret BS on that.
You made the argument, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm just repeating what far more experienced folks than myself have asserted.
The easy to find stuff we have mostly found already.
Sure there's a ton of oil in the mountains... but it's locked up in shale & sands and is
not comparable to conventional deposits.
What's with the "ignorant & intractable" slurs guy?
You claimed 3D limitations, I disagreed and asked for some corroborating source to support your argument.
What?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson