Updates
February 12, 2014: I want to post this story so it's in the archives, but I want to bury it deep in the blog so folks are unlikely to stumble across it unless they are specifically looking for it or come across through random surfing. Over at ZeroHedge, which I thought was a pretty good blog, posted a very poorly written guest column which appears to be nothing more than an advertisement to invest in gold and/or silver. The lies, damned lies, and statistics are incredible in this article. In case the link is broken, it is an opinion that the Bakken boom is about to go bust, if it hasn't already. The article was posted November 17, 2013. It's a pretty bad post for ZeroHedge.
Original Post
Rigzone is reporting: When the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meets in December, it is rumored that they may slash its oil production for the first time in five years, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The organization could reduce production by half a million barrels a day due to the surge in the North American shale boom.
OPEC's latest report, released last week, projected that demand for its crude will slide 300,000 barrels a day next year to 29.6 million barrels of oil per day, or about 2.6 percent less than the organization is currently producing.
"Yes, OPEC is 'concerned' about U.S./Canadian production increases in that while these [projected] volumes do not (yet) move into international markets, they displace oil that would have otherwise come here – thus the net available market for OPEC oil is a bit more competitive," Marcela Donadio, partner and Assurance Services Americas Oil and Gas Sector leader at Ernst & Young, told Rigzone.I wonder if Snopes will ever update its page on the Bakken or whether Jane Nielsen will update her blog, the one in which she said this about the Bakken: "Don't believe the hype. Sure, there's some oil there, but not much."
The Bakken has already produced about 3B bo. That is pretty close the the 2008ish USGS estimate for ultimate TRR. And a number Jane thought was way high. (Since then USGS doubled their estimate.)
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear, even just with current producing wells that we will outdistance the number Jane thought was high. But no. She hasn't revisited her comments. Unbiased analysts value revisiting wrong predictions. They are honest about it. She is not.
Wow, that goes back a long, long time. Yes, I've given up on folks with an agenda to go back and re-tweak their earlier statements, earlier predictions. The great thing about the internet? The internet is forever, especially with "screenshots."
DeleteThank you very much for taking time to write.