3 ms·
> "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats. I don't agree, particularly in the context of the post I replied
by vonmoltke 7y ago
> "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats.
I don't agree, particularly in the context of the post I replied to. The post mentioned book value going to 0, which means the oil is permanently in the ground. The paragraph of caveats does not make proven reserves worthless, just worth significantly less.
Also, I generally dislike oversimplifications on technical topics, particularly controversial ones. It tends to turn discussion into a battle of sound bites where the nuance gets lost. I can tell that already just by the reaction to my initial post.
- cagenut 7y agoMy post clearly say "80+%" not "to 0". There is no need to lie or put words in my mouth, you can see the actual statement on your screen just a couple inches above this one. It is incredibly suspicious that you would accuse others of losing nuance and over-simplifying after doing so.
- vonmoltke 7y agoYou are correct, rereading my post I did not say what I meant to say. What I meant to refer to was the book value of the reserves that are not extracted. You stated > 80%+ of their reserves, and therefore their book value, must stay in the ground. That statement, to me, clearly says the oil that "must stay in the ground" is worthless, and demonstrates that you do mean permanently. If you didn't, the book value of the company would not fall by the same amount as the fraction of reserves, because those reserves still have diminished value at lower rates of production.