Dear S., When I replied to your initial comment, I said “The author’s accomplishments and comments seem impressive to a layman, me.” As such, I have neither the training nor the experience to read something like Mill’s article and grade it anywhere on the COS/Profound scale. I was impressed by his article to the extent that I was impressed by the ranking, “COS”, you gave it and your positive assertion that “The author has little or no idea what he is talking about.” This would usually mean that you most certainly do know what you’re talking about and I’m disappointed that you chose not to share a more expansive critique of Mill’s article. I was not seeking a debate; just more light on a topic I know little about.
Fair enough but I still ask, what did he say that is profound?
It is about 40 years of experience in looking for, drilling, completing wells, producing and selling oil by which I make the ranking that the article is a COS.
Putting it quickly, he did not say anything. He seems to indicate that shale economics will be improved by data analysis and presumes that somehow it will reveal something overlooked. Poppycock. He also seems to indicate that some new technology has been invented that will make shale production generally economic at $60 or so... he does not understand the fundamentals of supply and demand or oil and gas economics or the unique characteristic of shale, cliff-like decline rates, that are to be overcome.
I can’t give you a complete lesson in oil and gas here and now, haven’t the time or the inclination. The article remains a COS though written by an academic pandering for recognition as I see it from where I sit having seen this many times before.