From earlier today, re-posting:
If it's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure it is, fine; but if Anas really does not know, he's not reading the blog. LOL. Yes, he knows.
But there are at least two story lines in that graphic. An answer with "restraint" in it is not an answer at all. If true, that this is due to "restraint," why the "restraint"?
I'm re-posting this to give me an opportunity to expand on this graphic.
One of the most common answers given is "restraint," which I infer to mean that US shale operators are showing "restraint."
When used in that context, I infer that the "restraint" is voluntary, not "forced."
Helllloooo ... for US shale operators there is no such thing as "voluntary restraint" as implied/inferred in this discussion.
When I see folks suggest that US shale operators are "showing restraint" it suggests to me the writer is implying that US shale operators are operating as "one" -- sort of like OPEC. LOL. US shale operators are not acting as one entity. In free market capitalism (where collusion is illegal) it's a dog-eat-dog world.
Period. Dot.
I was going to write more, but I got bored. I may finish this later, but I think enough has been said.
No comments:
Post a Comment