Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is Fracking A Hoax?

I think the poster I referenced above had it right. What we'd need isn't accessible.

Well, in that case, feel free to spew any kind of nonsense.

The following in required to analyze any publicly traded corporation.

You would need to understand GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

SEC accounting principles.

IRS accounting principles.

For international companies you would also need to understand, international accounting principles and every country's GAAP, plus every country's version of SEC accounting principles and revenue collecting accounting principles.

There are international forensic accountants trained in this field who usually have a doctor's degree in accounting that understand this stuff which the clown you posted doesn't have.

Oh and I almost forgot the publicly traded LLPs that all oil and gas companies form to spread the cost and the wealth.

This is not an easy field to understand by the lay person.

Wrong. You've never stated what facts/citations you want/ need or will accept.

You don't need to analyze a publicly traded O&G operator. There are loads of independents that do the exact same thing, including fracing, that the big boys do. It ain't rocket science anymore. Thanks to modern tracing techniques, directional drilling, $80+/bbl oil, dry holes are rare here in the Basin.

Use this as a ballpark, but it won't be far off:
$6M cash outlay "to the tanks"
100bbls oil daily
75bbls net to operator/producer
$7500 per day income, not including nat gas, so ballpark it at $8000 per day income
= $2,920,000 annually
2 year payout

There are just as many, and likely many more new wells making 300-2000 bbls/day than 100 bbls/day, but you guys do the math.

563 drilling rigs currently running here in the Permian.
They aren't stupid.

no no no all the oil is pulled out of the ground by big multinational companies, they control everything

I can see this topic is a very emotional one for you.

Not emotional at all. I don't have a dog in the fight. I do, however, know that it isn't a hoax and that is easily proven.

You cannot or will not provide a straight answer nor what you need/want/will accept as evidence. That is rather telling.

You feel that I've not answered your question as you'd like. That must be very frustrating.

I thought that you stuck to economic only on this topic.
Are you practicing up to be a Shade Tree Psychologist?

You have not answered it directly at all, and continue to obfuscate. That is a typical ploy by political hacks when they are out of their league and want to make a point in contradiction of facts. I'm not frustrated at all; and I am certainly not afraid of facts as you certainly appear to be.

I actually posted in search of a very specific set of facts, i.e., those that might either confirm or refute the argument made by Keiser. I'm sorry you've misunderstood my purpose.

You continue to avoid answering the question. What facts/citations would you need/want or accept (I suspect the latter is more important than the former if you believe that hack in the first place)? I doubt you'd accept anything .gov or .com. What about .edu or .org? Domestic and/or foreign? Any other restrictions/qualifications? That's about as plain as I can make the question.

you, Sir, are wasting your time.

As evidensed in the "Holocaust didn't happen" thread, when handed his ass, TRH resorted to "I'm Mr. thread moderator", and simply bantered for rebuttals and whatnot to his assigned direction.

If you are expecting to engage in a discussion guided by someone else, you are mistaken.

He will not engage in someone else's guided debate, because he knows the ass handing will be dished out, once again.

He finds it hard to look his dog in the face under those circumstances.

I was hoping for cogent responses to Keiser's economic argument. Nothing more. So far, I've received one response that was on point.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer. If you don't have that, why do you feel compelled to post?

It's pavlovian, much like when discussing Jewish swindles.

I have it and can provide it. I asked what you wanted/needed and will accept. You refuse to answer that question. It appears that there can be only two reasons for that: 1) you don.'to understand the subject enough to even know what you want or need, and/or 2) you won't believe or won't accept anything that dispels the crap spewed by that hack (and obviously the lies you have convinced yourself to believe).

You don't want facts, and you don't want discussion. You want to believe in a conspiracy that doesn't exist becomes it confirms to your worldview. Have fun with that and the mental masturbation that stems from the same.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I don't have a dog in this fight either. You're making a huge and unfounded assumption that I'm "all in" with the Keiser position. I only said that I found it compelling, assuming the facts he laid out were accurate.

PS Your question No. 1 makes little sense to me, since all I've asked for was a refutation. That can take a multitude of forms, not just one that I can imagine in advance. I've given you one example already of a response that I found cogent. What made it cogent was that it first established that the answerer understood the issue in question, and then responded that the information needed to refute (or confirm) it isn't generally available.

Here's a hint: his facts are as inaccurate as Hussein Obama's "facts" on essentially any issue.

You found it compelling because you want to believe in any conspiracy that comes down the pike.