RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:10 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 

It could be just as you suggest, a chemical, toxic, nightmare, to be footed by 
the tax payers. But I am thinking not so much, as the chemicals used have been 
around for decades, with no great problem detected. Notice how cheaper the 
gasoline is now? Notice how russia, iran, and the saudi economy has been 
upended? The idea is a civilization completely powered by the sun. The real is 
fracking. But we can always hope.

In energy matters I prefer to look at five year moving averages for 
understanding price trends; doing so helps eliminate the noise of volatility in 
the market. 

Most of the independent drilling companies that dominate US shale production 
sell futures contracts to show lenders they have locked in an oil price that is 
higher than their cost of production. This is especially true for the many 
independent smaller operators; if they can’t hedge above their cost of 
production, they are dead in the water. The US shale play needs a sustained 
minimum of above $90 on the world oil futures markets in order to be able to 
sell these hedges and use them as the basis on which they can get new capital 
to continue drilling.

There are trillions of dollars of future hedge contracts most of which were 
underwritten by big money center banks whose models did not account for this 
global market plunge. Big money center banks are feeling quite exposed now and 
if this price slump lasts longer than a year they could be in very serious 
trouble again, in a repeat of 2007-2008 when the housing derivatives market 
collapsed. Estimates put the six largest “too big to fail” banks commodity 
derivatives contracts holdings around $3.9 trillion, a majority of which is 
comprised of various flavors of oil future hedges. Most of the drillers in the 
tight oil sector in the US have already locked in future prices for next year 
and up into 2016 at around $90 per barrel. For example, Noble Energy and Devon 
Energy have both hedged over three-quarters of their output for 2015, and 
Pioneer Natural Resources has options covering 67% of its likely production 
through 2016. 

These drillers have locked in price volatility protection for themselves (as 
long as the banks honor their losses), but what about the big banks themselves? 
If global oil spot price stagnates for much longer and these contracts start 
coming due the losses are going to be astronomical. Who will endup covering 
these losses? 

Interesting side note: Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma oil billionaire (heavily 
invested in the Bakken) has bet a big chunk of his fortune that oil prices will 
rise soon; cashing in on almost 40 million barrels worth of future hedges, 
reaping a current profit of over $433 million for this quarter, but exposing 
his firm to price volatility if oil spot prices should stagnate or even decline 
further. 

-Chris

 




-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 03:31 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy



 

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

>>It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas. 
>>Nothing else in the world has paid off like this.  

 

Wait till the taxpayer gets dumped on with all those underwater derivatives the 
big money center banks have just made sure we are liable for. You have no idea 
of the mountain of debt that is about to avalanche down on the US financial 
system. 

 

 

Even a report I saw today on energy policy encouraged more expansion into solar 
so that it will acquire 10% of the US electricity market. If this is correct, 
then solar will be marginal unless there's a vast improvement in production and 
storage, like we all hoped for. It's like all the wonders dreamed of over the 
last several decades keep fading into the future, further and further. Probably 
solar or fusion will never be marginal, this century, and the next energy 
source after shale will be methane hydrates, and we all know what the fear of 
AGW is focused on, as well as Siberia.  I guess we play the hand we're dealt, 
even though its not what we wanted. 

  

Ho Ho Ho 

Merry Scrooge Day 

  

and be in all the earlier tomorrow! 

  

  

 

-Original Message- 
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 
To: everything-list  
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 2:36 pm 
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy 

 

  _  

From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via 

RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

> The Monterey reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible 
> projections they made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL tight 
> oil reserves in the USA

 

I'm sorry Chris but that simply isn't true. Yes the Monterey shale reserve was 
vastly overestimated, at one time they thought it contained 15.4 billion 
barrels of oil but the true figure is less than a billion. However just one oil 
shale deposit in the USA, the Green River Formation, contains 1466 billion 
barrels of oil, nearly 100 times what Monterey was thought to contain even at 
it's peak. So although embarrassing the overestimate doesn't substantially 
change anything. 

 

Yeah… and if you believe those figures I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. 
In fact those very numbers you site are controversial and disputed by many 
petroleum geologists. Just because it is shale does not mean that the 
hydrocarbons trapped in it are recoverable. 

In the Bakken and Eagle Ford the extracted oil, actually exists as oil, but the 
shale does not allow the oil to flow very well. This oil is properly called 
"tight oil", and advances in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology have 
allowed some of this oil to be economically produced.

The oil shale in the Green River looks like rock instead.

Unlike the hydrocarbons in the tight oil formations, the oil shale (kerogen) 
consists of very heavy hydrocarbons that are solid. In that way, oil shale more 
resembles coal than oil. Oil shale is essentially oil that Mother Nature did 
not finish cooking, and thus to convert it into oil, heat has to be added. The 
energy requirements -- plus the fact that oil shale production requires a lot 
of water in a very dry environment -- have kept oil shale commercialization out 
of reach for over 100 years.

Ready to buy that bridge in Brooklyn… for you my friend I’ll give you a special 
price.

 

>>If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior method 
>>that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the ground can 
>>be economically extracted.  I'm all ears. 

 

> I am not the one calling myself "The Energy Information Agency of the United 
> States of America" now am I. You give me the same monetary, human, legal and 
> political resources as the EIA and in five years I will give you numbers. 
> Deal?

 

But today is not not 5 years from now and you have zero monetary, human, legal 
and political resources and yet you claim to know exactly how much gas and oil 
is in the ground in the USA that can be extracted economically; all I want to 
know is how you acquired that information.

 

How about you tell me where you get your facts first John... other than the EIA 
(I can surf over there too and I have poured through a lot of their published 
materials too). I am not going to play this empty parlor game with you; if you 
doubt any of the facts I have stated then mount a specific – preferably fact 
based – challenge. 

 

>The shale play already has gone up John - it has sucked in trillions of dollars

 

Bullshit.

Bullshit on your bullshit John. When you sum up all the river of capital it has 
sucked up and the mountain of derivatives built up around this bubble, it is 
trillions.

 

 

 > and made the insiders billions of dollars.

 

True.

 

> What the hell do you think HAS BEEN happening during the past four years?

 

What I think has happened is that the price of oil has dropped from $147 to 
$60, and that is not a estimate or a opinion or a prediction, that my friend is 
a fact. And you can wave your hands around all you want but it won't change 
that monumentally important facet of reality. 

 

And what gives you the peculiar notion that I am disputing what are well known 
market price points. John, what you are doing in fact is itself empty hand 
waiving. You have said nothing here. Do you have nothing of substance to say?

 

>>Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the oil 
>>(or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less than 
>>half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of those 
>>energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your money 
>>where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very 
>>temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as 
>>fast as you can.  And you should be buying them on margin to give yourself 
>>leverage, of course if you're wrong then the leverage works against you but 
>>I'm sure there is no possibility you're wrong. 

 

> You should not be giving others free advice John. 

 

You're right, I should have c

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

It could be just as you suggest, a chemical, toxic, nightmare, to be footed by 
the tax payers. But I am thinking not so much, as the chemicals used have been 
around for decades, with no great problem detected. Notice how cheaper the 
gasoline is now? Notice how russia, iran, and the saudi economy has been 
upended? The idea is a civilization completely powered by the sun. The real is 
fracking. But we can always hope.


-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 03:31 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy





 
  
   
  
  
 
   

 
  
  
From: spudboy100 via Everything 
List everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com
 
 Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 
2014 12:22 PM
 Subject: Re: 
Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
  
 

 

 
  

   
>>It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas. 
>>Nothing else in the world has paid off like this. 
   
   


   
   
Wait till the taxpayer gets dumped on with all those underwater derivatives the 
big money center banks have just made sure we are liable for. You have no idea 
of the mountain of debt that is about to avalanche down on the US financial 
system.
   
   


   
   


   
   
Even a report I saw today on energy policy encouraged more expansion into solar 
so that it will acquire 10% of the US electricity market. If this is correct, 
then solar will be marginal unless there's a vast improvement in production and 
storage, like we all hoped for. It's like all the wonders dreamed of over the 
last several decades keep fading into the future, further and further. Probably 
solar or fusion will never be marginal, this century, and the next energy 
source after shale will be methane hydrates, and we all know what the fear of 
AGW is focused on, as well as Siberia.  I guess we play the hand we're dealt, 
even though its not what we wanted.

   
 

   
Ho Ho Ho

   
Merry Scrooge Day

   
 

   
and be in all the earlier tomorrow!

   
 

   
 

   




   
   

-Original Message-
  From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com>
  To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com>
  Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 2:36 pm
  Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
  
  
  
   



 
 
 
 
  
   

From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com> 
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com
  Sent: 
Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Natural 
gas: The fracking fallacy  
   
  


 
 
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
  everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 wrote:
  
   
   
   
 
  
   
   
 > the very same 
EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit reserve projections it 
made in 2011

   
  
 

 
 

>>Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is 
>>more a art than a science, but given that as far as anybody knows they got it 
>>right with the Bakken and Eagle Ford formation and they alone account for 70% 
>>of reserves so it's not a major consideration. Could they be wrong again? 
>>Sure. Could you also be wrong about reserves? No way!
 

  
 

Wrong!. Utterly wrong in fact, the Bakken did not account for 70% of the 
reserve picture presented by the EIA between 2011 and the middle of 2014 when 
they finally downgraded the Monterey shale reserve projections. The Monterey 
reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible projections they 
made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL tight oil reserves in the 
USA INCLUDING the Bakken, Marcelus and Eagle Ford formations. In other words 
the Bakken, the Marcelus and the Eagle Ford lumped together ac

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> > The Monterey reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible
> projections they made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL
> tight oil reserves in the USA
>

I'm sorry Chris but that simply isn't true. Yes the Monterey shale reserve
was vastly overestimated, at one time they thought it contained 15.4
billion barrels of oil but the true figure is less than a billion. However
just one oil shale deposit in the USA, the Green River Formation, contains
1466 billion barrels of oil, nearly 100 times what Monterey was thought to
contain even at it's peak. So although embarrassing
the overestimate doesn't substantially change anything.

>>If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior
>> method that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the
>> ground can be economically extracted.  I'm all ears.
>
>
> > I am not the one calling myself "The Energy Information Agency of the
> United States of America" now am I. You give me the same monetary, human,
> legal and political resources as the EIA and in five years I will give you
> numbers. Deal?
>

But today is not not 5 years from now and you have zero monetary, human,
legal and political resources and yet you claim to know exactly how much
gas and oil is in the ground in the USA that can be extracted economically;
all I want to know is how you acquired that information.

>The shale play already has gone up John - it has sucked in trillions of
> dollars


Bullshit.

 > and made the insiders billions of dollars.


True.


> > What the hell do you think HAS BEEN happening during the past four years?
>

What I think has happened is that the price of oil has dropped from $147 to
$60, and that is not a estimate or a opinion or a prediction, that my
friend is a fact. And you can wave your hands around all you want but it
won't change that monumentally important facet of reality.


> >>Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the
>> oil (or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less
>> than half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of
>> those energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your
>> money where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very
>> temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as
>> fast as you can.  And you should be buying them on margin to give yourself
>> leverage, of course if you're wrong then the leverage works against you but
>> I'm sure there is no possibility you're wrong.
>
>
> > You should not be giving others free advice John.
>

You're right, I should have charged you for such valuable advice because if
you follow it you will became fabulously rich, or at least you will if you
really are smarter than the collective wisdom of millions of people on this
matter, that is to say if you really are smarter than the market.


> >>Bullshit, nobody promised endless supplies of anything.
>
>
> > Bullshit -- read the press releases
>

I'd love to read them but I can't seem to find these false press reports
you keep refer to, please show me some


> > The shale boom was very much presented as being able to supply the US
> with a secure and almost inexhaustible supply of fossil energy
>

I don't know what "almost inexhaustible" means but we are not going to run
out of shale oil in your lifetime or that of your children. The I*nternational
Energy Agency, which has nothing to do with  the government of the USA and
is in fact based in Paris, says that there are 4.8 trillion barrels of
shale oil in the world with 3.7 trillion barrels of it in the USA, although
only 1 trillion can be economically recoverable with existing technology.
The amount of conventional oil that exists, not just in Saudi Arabia, not
just in OPEC, but in the entire world is 1.3 trillion barrels. And that's
why I say **Saudi Arabia will run out of oil before the USA runs out of
oil.*

>>It's only right and just that low cost producers put high cost producers
> of oil or of anything else out of business, so if OPEC wishes to keep the
> shale people out of the oil business they're going to have to keep their
> production high enough that oil costs less than what the shale people cam
> make it for. Currently it costs between $95 and $30 to produce a barrel of
> oil from shale depending on the particulars of the geology, and as
> technology improves the cost will go down. That explains why $147 for a
> barrel of oil as it was at its peak in 2008 is not sustainable however much
> OPEC may wish it were, and Saudi Arabia will run out of oil before the USA
> runs out of shale.
>
>
> > You have bought into the line presented by the cornucopean press
> releases hook line and sinker. SHale oil does not cost $30 a barrel to
> produce.
>

Wikipedia thinks it's between $95 and $25 but I think 

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

  From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:22 PM
 Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
   
>>It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas. 
>>Nothing else in the world has paid off like this. 
Wait till the taxpayer gets dumped on with all those underwater derivatives the 
big money center banks have just made sure we are liable for. You have no idea 
of the mountain of debt that is about to avalanche down on the US financial 
system.

Even a report I saw today on energy policy encouraged more expansion into solar 
so that it will acquire 10% of the US electricity market. If this is correct, 
then solar will be marginal unless there's a vast improvement in production and 
storage, like we all hoped for. It's like all the wonders dreamed of over the 
last several decades keep fading into the future, further and further. Probably 
solar or fusion will never be marginal, this century, and the next energy 
source after shale will be methane hydrates, and we all know what the fear of 
AGW is focused on, as well as Siberia.  I guess we play the hand we're dealt, 
even though its not what we wanted. Ho Ho HoMerry Scrooge Day and be in all the 
earlier tomorrow!  

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy


  From: John Clark 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM
 Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
   
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:


 > the very same EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit 
reserve projections it made in 2011

>>Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is 
>>more a art than a science, but given that as far as anybody knows they got it 
>>right with the Bakken and Eagle Ford formation and they alone account for 70% 
>>of reserves so it's not a major consideration. Could they be wrong again? 
>>Sure. Could you also be wrong about reserves? No way!
Wrong!. Utterly wrong in fact, the Bakken did not account for 70% of the 
reserve picture presented by the EIA between 2011 and the middle of 2014 when 
they finally downgraded the Monterey shale reserve projections. The Monterey 
reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible projections they 
made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL tight oil reserves in the 
USA INCLUDING the Bakken, Marcelus and Eagle Ford formations. In other words 
the Bakken, the Marcelus and the Eagle Ford lumped together accounted for less 
than 40% of the reserve figures touted by the EIA AND used to blow up this 
massive bubble that is no bursting. The Monterey shale was the big daddy of 
them all, according to the EIA. This announcement was highly cited by the 
boosters of this bubble in order to whip up the mania of "The US becoming the 
Saudi Arabia of shale". Only after the hoopla had served its intended purpose 
(convincing investors that this was absolutely huge) were these non-existent 
reserves quietly downgraded -- in a non media event "quiet" announcement -- and 
by a whopping 94%!


> The EIA, IMO, is complicit in this fraud. And as evidence I produced the 
> grossly overstated reserve numbers it produced for the Monterey shale 
> deposits in 2011


>>If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior method 
>>that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the ground can 
>>be economically extracted.  I'm all ears. 

I am not the one calling myself "The Energy Information Agency of the United 
States of America" now am I. You give me the same monetary, human, legal and 
political resources as the EIA and in five years I will give you numbers. Deal?


 > I am describing a huge financial bubble, 
>>The first financial bubble in the history of the planet that went down not up.
You really don't get bubbles do you? Bubbles go down when they blow up silly 
man. When the housing bubble blew to pieces in 2007-2008 did housing prices 
continue to rise? The shale play already has gone up John - it has sucked in 
trillions of dollars and made the insiders billions of dollars. What the hell 
do you think HAS BEEN happening during the past four years?This mania is now 
bursting.
 

> tied to tight oil sector energy derivatives that is bursting as we speak, yes.
>>Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the oil 
>>(or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less than 
>>half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of those 
>>energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your money 
>>where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very 
>>temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as 
>>fast as you

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas. Nothing 
else in the world has paid off like this. Even a report I saw today on energy 
policy encouraged more expansion into solar so that it will acquire 10% of the 
US electricity market. If this is correct, then solar will be marginal unless 
there's a vast improvement in production and storage, like we all hoped for. 
It's like all the wonders dreamed of over the last several decades keep fading 
into the future, further and further. Probably solar or fusion will never be 
marginal, this century, and the next energy source after shale will be methane 
hydrates, and we all know what the fear of AGW is focused on, as well as 
Siberia.  I guess we play the hand we're dealt, even though its not what we 
wanted.

Ho Ho Ho
Merry Scrooge Day

and be in all the earlier tomorrow!
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy





  
 
 
 
   From: John Clark 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM
 Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
  
 



On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:




 > the very same EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit 
 > reserve projections it made in 2011




>>Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is 
>>more a art than a science, but given that as far as anybody knows they got it 
>>right with the Bakken and Eagle Ford formation and they alone account for 70% 
>>of reserves so it's not a major consideration. Could they be wrong again? 
>>Sure. Could you also be wrong about reserves? No way!


Wrong!. Utterly wrong in fact, the Bakken did not account for 70% of the 
reserve picture presented by the EIA between 2011 and the middle of 2014 when 
they finally downgraded the Monterey shale reserve projections. The Monterey 
reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible projections they 
made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL tight oil reserves in the 
USA INCLUDING the Bakken, Marcelus and Eagle Ford formations. In other words 
the Bakken, the Marcelus and the Eagle Ford lumped together accounted for less 
than 40% of the reserve figures touted by the EIA AND used to blow up this 
massive bubble that is no bursting. The Monterey shale was the big daddy of 
them all, according to the EIA. This announcement was highly cited by the 
boosters of this bubble in order to whip up the mania of "The US becoming the 
Saudi Arabia of shale". Only after the hoopla had served its intended purpose 
(convincing investors that this was absolutely huge) were these non-existent 
reserves quietly downgraded -- in a non media event "quiet" announcement -- and 
by a whopping 94%!



> The EIA, IMO, is complicit in this fraud. And as evidence I produced the 
> grossly overstated reserve numbers it produced for the Monterey shale 
> deposits in 2011



>>If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior method 
>>that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the ground can 
>>be economically extracted.  I'm all ears. 



I am not the one calling myself "The Energy Information Agency of the United 
States of America" now am I. You give me the same monetary, human, legal and 
political resources as the EIA and in five years I will give you numbers. Deal?






 > I am describing a huge financial bubble, 


>>The first financial bubble in the history of the planet that went down not up.


You really don't get bubbles do you? Bubbles go down when they blow up silly 
man. When the housing bubble blew to pieces in 2007-2008 did housing prices 
continue to rise? The shale play already has gone up John - it has sucked in 
trillions of dollars and made the insiders billions of dollars. What the hell 
do you think HAS BEEN happening during the past four years?
This mania is now bursting.


 



> tied to tight oil sector energy derivatives that is bursting as we speak, yes.


>>Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the oil 
>>(or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less than 
>>half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of those 
>>energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your money 
>>where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very 
>>temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as 
>>fast as you can.  And you should be buying them on margin to give yourself 
>>leverage, of course if you're wrong then the leverage works against you but 
>>I'm sure there is no possibility you're wrong. 



You should not be giving others free advice John. 


 


 > I am describing this investment and perception mania that was manufactured 
 > on promises of endless supplies of new shale deposi

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

  From: John Clark 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM
 Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
   
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:


 > the very same EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit 
reserve projections it made in 2011

>>Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is 
>>more a art than a science, but given that as far as anybody knows they got it 
>>right with the Bakken and Eagle Ford formation and they alone account for 70% 
>>of reserves so it's not a major consideration. Could they be wrong again? 
>>Sure. Could you also be wrong about reserves? No way!
Wrong!. Utterly wrong in fact, the Bakken did not account for 70% of the 
reserve picture presented by the EIA between 2011 and the middle of 2014 when 
they finally downgraded the Monterey shale reserve projections. The Monterey 
reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible projections they 
made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL tight oil reserves in the 
USA INCLUDING the Bakken, Marcelus and Eagle Ford formations. In other words 
the Bakken, the Marcelus and the Eagle Ford lumped together accounted for less 
than 40% of the reserve figures touted by the EIA AND used to blow up this 
massive bubble that is no bursting. The Monterey shale was the big daddy of 
them all, according to the EIA. This announcement was highly cited by the 
boosters of this bubble in order to whip up the mania of "The US becoming the 
Saudi Arabia of shale". Only after the hoopla had served its intended purpose 
(convincing investors that this was absolutely huge) were these non-existent 
reserves quietly downgraded -- in a non media event "quiet" announcement -- and 
by a whopping 94%!


> The EIA, IMO, is complicit in this fraud. And as evidence I produced the 
> grossly overstated reserve numbers it produced for the Monterey shale 
> deposits in 2011


>>If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior method 
>>that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the ground can 
>>be economically extracted.  I'm all ears. 

I am not the one calling myself "The Energy Information Agency of the United 
States of America" now am I. You give me the same monetary, human, legal and 
political resources as the EIA and in five years I will give you numbers. Deal?


 > I am describing a huge financial bubble, 
>>The first financial bubble in the history of the planet that went down not up.
You really don't get bubbles do you? Bubbles go down when they blow up silly 
man. When the housing bubble blew to pieces in 2007-2008 did housing prices 
continue to rise? The shale play already has gone up John - it has sucked in 
trillions of dollars and made the insiders billions of dollars. What the hell 
do you think HAS BEEN happening during the past four years?This mania is now 
bursting.
 

> tied to tight oil sector energy derivatives that is bursting as we speak, yes.
>>Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the oil 
>>(or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less than 
>>half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of those 
>>energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your money 
>>where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very 
>>temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as 
>>fast as you can.  And you should be buying them on margin to give yourself 
>>leverage, of course if you're wrong then the leverage works against you but 
>>I'm sure there is no possibility you're wrong. 

You should not be giving others free advice John. 
 
 > I am describing this investment and perception mania that was manufactured 
 > on promises of endless supplies of new shale deposits. 
>>Bullshit, nobody promised endless supplies of anything.

Bullshit -- read the press releases and the perception management that flooded 
the media and was produced by think tank after think tank tied to these 
interests. The shale boom was very much presented as being able to supply the 
US with a secure and almost inexhaustible supply of fossil energy for a period 
of four or more decades. I argued with some of these boosters during the ramp 
up to this buble in 2009-2011 -- to hear them tell it the Bakken formation 
extended down all the way to China -- I jest, but that is the essence of their 
position. This boom has been sold as being able to secure America's energy 
needs for many decades and in fact it was supposed to turn America into a major 
supplier of gas and even oil to the the EU for example.

You do not seem to grasp the concept of low cost producers being able to put 
the squeeze on the high cost producers

>>It's only right and just that low cost producers put high cost producers of 
>>oil or of anything else out of business, so if OPEC wishes to

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 > the very same EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit
> reserve projections it made in 2011
>

Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is
more a art than a science, but given that as far as anybody knows they got
it right with the Bakken and Eagle Ford formation and they alone account
for 70% of reserves so it's not a major consideration. Could they be wrong
again? Sure. Could you also be wrong about reserves? No way!

> The EIA, IMO, is complicit in this fraud. And as evidence I produced the
> grossly overstated reserve numbers it produced for the Monterey shale
> deposits in 2011
>

If you don't like the way they do it please describe the far superior
method that you have developed for estimating how much oil and gas in the
ground can be economically extracted.  I'm all ears.

 > I am describing a huge financial bubble,
>
The first financial bubble in the history of the planet that went down not
up.

> tied to tight oil sector energy derivatives that is bursting as we speak,
> yes.
>
Since the value of a energy derivative is a function of the value of the
oil (or gas) in the ground, and since the value of a barrel of oil is less
than half what it was just a few years ago then of course the value of
those energy derivatives are going to go down too. But you need to put your
money where your mouth is, you think the drop in the cost of oil is a very
temporary thing, therefore you should be buying those energy derivatives as
fast as you can.  And you should be buying them on margin to give yourself
leverage, of course if you're wrong then the leverage works against you but
I'm sure there is no possibility you're wrong.


> > I am describing this investment and perception mania that was
> manufactured on promises of endless supplies of new shale deposits.
>
Bullshit, nobody promised endless supplies of anything.

> You do not seem to grasp the concept of low cost producers being able to
> put the squeeze on the high cost producers
>

It's only right and just that low cost producers put high cost producers of
oil or of anything else out of business, so if OPEC wishes to keep the
shale people out of the oil business they're going to have to keep their
production high enough that oil costs less than what the shale people cam
make it for. Currently it costs between $95 and $30 to produce a barrel of
oil from shale depending on the particulars of the geology, and as
technology improves the cost will go down. That explains why $147 for a
barrel of oil as it was at its peak in 2008 is not sustainable however much
OPEC may wish it were, and Saudi Arabia will run out of oil before the USA
runs out of shale.

  John K Clark










>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: image]
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VIENNA (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia blocked calls on Thursday from poorer
> members of the OPEC oil exporter group for production cuts to arrest a
> slide in global prices,...
>
> View on *www.reuters.com*
> 
>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Testing MWI

[ronaldheld]

*arXiv:1412.7352*  (cross-list from gr-qc) [
*pdf* , *ps* , 
*other* ] 
Title: Testing the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with 
Cosmology 
Authors: *Aurelien Barrau* 
 
Comments: 5 pages 
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and 
Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) 

In this brief note, we argue that contrarily to what is still often stated, 
the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not in 
principle impossible to test. It is actually not more difficult (but not 
easier either) to test than most other kinds of multiverse theories. We 
also remind why multiverse scenarios can be falsified. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

[Alberto G. Corona]

By the way, you can observe that the terms of the language used by
political analysts is feudal:   they use loyalities, electoral feuds,
baronies to describe what happens in politics because they fit naturally
with the true nature of the problem that they are dealing with. They do not
realize most of the time that they are using a medieval language. But
that´s it.

2014-12-24 11:58 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona :

> The modern man is to politics what the ancient alchemists were to
> chemistry: Both believe that the final result depends on the shape of the
> recipient.
>
> 2014-12-23 23:14 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona :
>
>> Democracy is an false envelope, a fetish  name for a what is the best of
>> the western world. The freedom and innovation is not nor event would be
>> based of democracy. If the idea of democracy  - that is the idea that the
>> truth comes from consensus, were the thing that gives freedom and
>> innovation, then herds of sheeps would have been exploring the galaxy
>> millions of years ago. It should not be necessary forme to explain this to
>> you.
>>
>> What gives freedom is the respect for the individual. That does not come
>> from democracy. democracy may be a  (maybe wrong) consecuence of the
>> respect for the individual. This respect comes from outside of the
>> political system. It comes from Christianity. it will last for as much as
>> Christianity will endure. And will end in the very moment that Christianity
>> is repressed. I invite you to look at the (frequent) moments of  supression
>> of freedom in Europe.
>>
>> 2014-12-22 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Dec 2014, at 15:42, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> >Democracy makes it possible to live differently from the mainstream. It
>>> is >not easy, and democracy is not enough, but it can help better than a
>>> tyrant >or community enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting
>>> them.
>>>
>>> And what differences "Democracy"  from a tirant or community enforcing
>>> arbitrary rules without means of contesting them?.
>>>
>>> Democracy is a ritualized form of brute force. The root of the
>>> democratic idea is the sacralization of numeric force.  And the
>>> legitimation is, consciously or unconsciously, the realization for
>>> everyone, that the majority would win a bloody confrontation.
>>>
>>> That IS the TRUE legitimization of democracy. In the same way that two
>>> deers will not fight if one show bigger horns, since the result of the
>>> combat is already know. Each side of a democratic contest does not fight
>>> for the same reason.
>>>
>>>  The difference is that in democracy the force comes from the highest
>>> pitch for the best short term offer in exchange for the longer term
>>> disaster. The coalition that accept that mix of offer and lies is the
>>> Tyrant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you will not succeed in breaking my pleasure to see democracy
>>> making progress in East-europa and in the middle-east, where it means to
>>> just been able to discuss and gossip behind a beer or a coffee without
>>> fearing delation from some spy hostage of the power. And today my pleasure
>>> is made great with the election of a laic muslim in Tunisia.
>>>
>>> I even consider that Egypt's democracy has win when people elected the
>>> Muslim Brotherhood, and has still win when the same people re-install
>>> courageously the military dictatorship once they saw the persecution of
>>> jews and christian coming back, and when they understood that a military
>>> dictatorship was the only way to save the possibility of a democracy in
>>> some middle run, a possibility that the fanatic islamists were threatening.
>>>
>>> It is easy to criticize democracy in a democacry (even old and sick),
>>> but most people living in non democratic regime suffer a lot, and have no
>>> hope---except for the ruling minority which can stand for many generations.
>>>
>>> Would you prefer to live in North Korea or in South Korea? Honestly.
>>> Come on.
>>>
>>> Democracy is not perfect. A bit like computationalism, it is not the
>>> solution of the problems, but an efficacious frame making it possible to
>>> formulate the problems, and listen to different solutions, and keep the
>>> extremists at bay.
>>>
>>> Yes, a democracy can be tyrannic, or lead to a tyranny, but with a
>>> tyranny, well you are already in the tyranny, and you can fear even your
>>> friends and brothers and sisters.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-12-22 13:24 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>>

 On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the
>> German Empire. for the same reasons that it i

Re: Democracy

[Alberto G. Corona]

The modern man is to politics what the ancient alchemists were to
chemistry: Both believe that the final result depends on the shape of the
recipient.

2014-12-23 23:14 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona :

> Democracy is an false envelope, a fetish  name for a what is the best of
> the western world. The freedom and innovation is not nor event would be
> based of democracy. If the idea of democracy  - that is the idea that the
> truth comes from consensus, were the thing that gives freedom and
> innovation, then herds of sheeps would have been exploring the galaxy
> millions of years ago. It should not be necessary forme to explain this to
> you.
>
> What gives freedom is the respect for the individual. That does not come
> from democracy. democracy may be a  (maybe wrong) consecuence of the
> respect for the individual. This respect comes from outside of the
> political system. It comes from Christianity. it will last for as much as
> Christianity will endure. And will end in the very moment that Christianity
> is repressed. I invite you to look at the (frequent) moments of  supression
> of freedom in Europe.
>
> 2014-12-22 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 22 Dec 2014, at 15:42, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> >Democracy makes it possible to live differently from the mainstream. It
>> is >not easy, and democracy is not enough, but it can help better than a
>> tyrant >or community enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting
>> them.
>>
>> And what differences "Democracy"  from a tirant or community enforcing
>> arbitrary rules without means of contesting them?.
>>
>> Democracy is a ritualized form of brute force. The root of the democratic
>> idea is the sacralization of numeric force.  And the legitimation is,
>> consciously or unconsciously, the realization for everyone, that the
>> majority would win a bloody confrontation.
>>
>> That IS the TRUE legitimization of democracy. In the same way that two
>> deers will not fight if one show bigger horns, since the result of the
>> combat is already know. Each side of a democratic contest does not fight
>> for the same reason.
>>
>>  The difference is that in democracy the force comes from the highest
>> pitch for the best short term offer in exchange for the longer term
>> disaster. The coalition that accept that mix of offer and lies is the
>> Tyrant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you will not succeed in breaking my pleasure to see democracy
>> making progress in East-europa and in the middle-east, where it means to
>> just been able to discuss and gossip behind a beer or a coffee without
>> fearing delation from some spy hostage of the power. And today my pleasure
>> is made great with the election of a laic muslim in Tunisia.
>>
>> I even consider that Egypt's democracy has win when people elected the
>> Muslim Brotherhood, and has still win when the same people re-install
>> courageously the military dictatorship once they saw the persecution of
>> jews and christian coming back, and when they understood that a military
>> dictatorship was the only way to save the possibility of a democracy in
>> some middle run, a possibility that the fanatic islamists were threatening.
>>
>> It is easy to criticize democracy in a democacry (even old and sick), but
>> most people living in non democratic regime suffer a lot, and have no
>> hope---except for the ruling minority which can stand for many generations.
>>
>> Would you prefer to live in North Korea or in South Korea? Honestly. Come
>> on.
>>
>> Democracy is not perfect. A bit like computationalism, it is not the
>> solution of the problems, but an efficacious frame making it possible to
>> formulate the problems, and listen to different solutions, and keep the
>> extremists at bay.
>>
>> Yes, a democracy can be tyrannic, or lead to a tyranny, but with a
>> tyranny, well you are already in the tyranny, and you can fear even your
>> friends and brothers and sisters.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-22 13:24 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the
> German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today by
> "democracies": populism.
>
> Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was
> constructed until recently.
>
> Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that it
> can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the idea that
> people will not act or vote for their inmediate interests  but will vote
> for anything that maintain the common good forever.  That is absolutely
> false. The only thing that maintain democracy i

Re: Democracy

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:03 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 23 December 2014 at 00:07, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> Modern societies provide more potential freedom, for sure. I could
>> theoretically travel to almost any part of the world I desire and be there
>> having breakfast before Christmas.
>>
>> Do modern societies provide more real freedom? Consider the life of the
>> peasants under european medieval feudalism. The modern view on this part of
>> history is that peasants had much more free time to use as they pleased in
>> comparison to modern middle class workers.
>>
>> Consider even kids. They are less free than they ever were. These days,
>> their entire lives consist of structured activities (which is necessary to
>> accommodate their parents also highly structured lives).
>>
>
> I absolutely agree with you on this. I always pooh-pooh anyone who harks
> back to some mythical "golden age" of rustic simplicity and new age-ness,
> but I also agree that THIS isn't a golden age either.
>

Yup, I agree with pooh-poohing the "golden age" myths, past and present
like you say.


> The awful thing is that this actually could be,
>

Yes. Technology places amazing things within our grasp, but it turns out
that improving the economic system is a harder problem than building the
holodeck.


> but of course the system has been hijacked by a few ultra rich people ...
> "because they're worth it" ... while everyone else is stuck in the
> shoulders-to-the-wheel noses-to-the-grindstone to support them.
>

I agree that the system has been hijacked by a few ultra rich people, but I
think the mechanism is a bit more insane than what you describe. I don't
think they need or even want western labour so much. I suspect a good chunk
of it is a pure loss to them. Most modern middle class jobs are bullshit
jobs. I think they arise as a compromise between the crony capitalists and
the bureaucrats who run the public side of things, because they know of no
better way to distribute some residual wealth so that the world does not
turn into a zombie movie.



> So on that basis it's just medievalism wearing suits rather than crowns.
> Why is Apple Inc worth more than Sweden? Because the Swedes don't employ
> enough Third World slavery...
>

This is not entirely fair. If we're going to pick on crony capitalism,
Apple is by far not the worst offender. They mostly became mega-rich by
creating things that people really want. This is what real capitalism is
supposed to work like. The same is true of Swedish IKEA (who used GDR slave
labour 30 years ago, btw).

Third world slavery is a real disgrace and Apple is profiting from it like
all other hardware companies. This is part of the denial of reality that
the entire western population lives in (not just the oligarchy).

Apple is in fact one of the companies that seems to be using their trading
strength to force changes on the Chinese side. They demand certain
standards for factories in China to work for them. Is this just PR? I don't
know. I do believe that strong trade and shared economic goals have more
potential to generate peace and respect for other humans than political
babbling.


> And yet 50 years ago some of us were hoping for a technological utopia.
> Turns out it wasn't for everyone, just the lucky few. The rest of us (the
> "99%") get "bread and circuses".
>

Well, 15 years ago I was dreaming of a technological utopia bootstrapped by
the Internet. Meanwhile, governments through agencies like the NSA silently
turned utopia into dystopia.

Telmo.


>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.