Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua G
funny how smart about oil you are, but your so fucking poor & bored you are posting about it on GFY.
it was one well. as you know, cause your so smart, they normally set up numerous wells in an area to find the oil, not 1. but its offshore artic, so its too expensive to do that. when you cant set up numerous drills, the odds are low you will hit paydirt.
When the price of oil supports more drilling tests, they will happen. & with more wells, at oil prices where its viable, they will hit the jackpot. so yes, current market conditions are relevent to decisions about drilling that well. had the price of a barrel been 200 dollars, suddenly what little oil they found is worth pulling. DUH...
you think you know what your talking about, but really you dont.
 |
Refer to the graph I posted above. They found bad hydrocarbon indications numbnuts. Seriously don't pretend to know what's going on. A basic understanding of supply and demand from econ 101 isn't going to pass here.
They didn't find ANY movable oil. They didn't find a "little oil". There isn't anything to "pull". They probably found residual oil (it's migrated out of the trap) or bituminous (old and ultra heavy) shows, or weak mud gas readings. You can drill almost anywhere in a known basin and get hydrocarbon indications.
Please use your brain for a minute.. This is multi-billion dollar exploration and they didn't even run a DST? This is why you don't argue when you don't know shit. Because you don't know enough to know what you don't know.
Ok so I've proven you wrong, in that you don't know there wasn't a "little oil" and they're just talking about traces on a gas chromatograph or something that wasn't even worth evaluating.. Will you still keep arguing like you have a leg to stand on?
A company will often sink multiple wells but often a single strategic well can rule out multiple prospects. It all depends on the geology, migration pathways, homogeneity of the trend etc.
I'll admit with $200 oil they'll be back up there (in a different area) but there are whole other reasons for that, like necessity rather than or as well as pure economic incentive. That's a whole separate argument to Robbie's. You complained I believed what I read in the paper but you just took the company's word at face value. All companies will try and put a positive spin on a bad outcome or blame other factors.
If the drill was in any way positive they would have continued. Actually, they would have announced a find of some description and talked it up even if it was shit, talked about low oil prices and how they would use the current situation to renegotiate contracts for lower rig rates and basically just put the whole thing on slow burn for a couple of years. The fact they couldn't even save any face at all and just junked the whole area says a lot about how bad the results were and what they said about the area.