页岩油革命实际上反映了一个国家的衰落 [美国媒体]

Here in the opening month of 2019, as the US consumes itself with hot debate over a border wall, far more important topics are being ignored completely.

在2019年的头一个月，美国正忙于围绕边境墙展开激烈辩论，更重要的话题却被完全忽视了。

Take US energy policy. In the US press and political circles, there’s nothing but crickets sounding when it comes to serious analysis or any sort of sustainable long-term plan.

以美国的能源政策为例。 在美国媒体和政界，当涉及到严肃的分析或任何形式的可持续的长期计划时，只会听到蟋蟀在鸣叫。



America's energy policy blunders are nowhere more obvious than in the shale oil space, where it's finally dawning on folks that these wells are going to produce a lot less than advertised.

美国能源政策的失误在页岩油领域最为明显，人们终于意识到，这些油井的产量将远远低于广告宣传的水平。



Vindicating our own reports -- which drew from the WSJ finally ran the numbers and discovered that shale wells are not producing nearly as much oil as the operators had claimed they were going to produce:

为了证明我们自己的报告是正确的---- 这些报告引用了华尔街日报最终统计数字，发现页岩油井产出的石油并不像运营商声称的那样多:

Fracking’s Secret Problem—Oil Wells Aren’t Producing as Much as Forecast

水力压裂的秘密问题ーー油井产量低于预期

Thousands of shale wells drilled in the last five years are pumping less oil and gas than their owners forecast to investors, raising questions about the strength and profitability of the fracking boom that turned the U.S. into an oil superpower.

在过去的五年里，成千上万的页岩井开采出的石油和天然气比它们所有者预测的要少，这使得人们开始质疑将美国变成石油超级大国的水力压裂技术的能力。



A strategy is nothing more than thoroughly addressing both parts of this question: Where are you going, and how are you going to get there?Or put another way: What’s your vision and what are your resources? This is true whether you're a major international corporation, a nation, or an individual. If you know where you're going and how you'll get there – congratulations! – you have a strategy.

一个策略只不过是彻底解决这个问题的两个部分: 你要去哪里，你要怎么去那里？或者换句话说: 你的愿景是什么，你的资源是什么？无论你是一家大型国际公司、一个国家还是一个个人，这都是事实。 如果你知道你要去哪里以及如何到达那里——恭喜！ 你有策略。

Because it's easy to dream up more “vision”, the vital part of having a strategy is being sure that your vision is both grand but achievable given your resources.The US has been blessed with abundant oil and natural gas resources. What it lacks is any sort of a vision about where we’d like to be when those wind down and eventually run out.

因为很容易想出更多的"愿景"，所以制定策略的关键部分就是确保你的愿景既宏伟又可以实现。美国拥有丰富的石油和天然气资源。 它缺少的是任何形式的愿景，最终用完时，我们想要去哪里。



What the shale "revolution" did was to drill straight into the source rocks themselves. Which require much more energy and cost to coax oil from.What’s left after the source rocks? Nothing, that’s what. There are no “pre-source” rocks to drill into next. We’re scraping away at the literal bottom of the geologic barrel, pretending as if that were all perfectly normal and sustainable. It’s neither

页岩"革命"所做的就是直接钻探烃源岩本身。 这需要更多的能源和成本，以取得石油。烃源岩之后还剩下什么？ 没什么，就这样。 没有"预烃源岩"可供下一步钻探。我们正在挖掘地质桶底，假装这一切都是完全正常和可持续的。 两者都不是。

Yes, the shale oil and natural gas extracted by fracking is going to be used. That much is a given. But on what? To continue to allow SUVs and light trucks to continue to be the most popular vehicles sold to US consumers? Or to continue to flare off (i.e. burn) excess natural gas from these wells that you can clearly see the wastage from space?

是的，通过水力压裂法开采的页岩油和天然气将被使用。 这是一个不争的事实。 但是为什么呢？ 继续允许SUV和轻型卡车继续成为销售给美国消费者的最受欢迎的汽车？还是继续从这些井中燃烧多余的天然气，以便清楚地看到来自空间的浪费？



What’s the emergency, we wonder? What’s so urgently important that we feel the need to cut corners and simply burn our natural gas, a non-reneweable fossil resource, as a waste product into the night sky?

有什么紧急情况？我们想知道， 是什么如此迫切，以至于我们觉得有必要偷工减料，简单地燃烧我们的天然气——一种不可再生的化石资源——作为一种废弃物在夜空中消失？

The emergency, we suspect, is that those involved in financing the shale companies don't want people pausing long enough to ask the right questions, which the WSJ finally did.

我们怀疑，紧急情况是那些参与资助页岩气公司的人不希望人们停下来问正确的问题，华尔街日报最终做了。

Conclusion

总结

Look, I consume oil and gas. I drive a car and I heat my house in the winter. So I'm not even remotely saying that the shale plays should be summarily abandoned.What I am saying is that we’re blindly proceeding without any sort of national strategy in place, using up extremely valuable and non-renewable energy resources at a blistering pace.Should our oil be taken out of the ground so quickly that exporting it to other nations is the only opportunity to ‘get rid of it?’

听着，我消耗石油和天然气。 我开车，冬天给房子取暖。 因此，我根本没有说应该立即放弃页岩油田。我要说的是，我们在没有任何国家战略的情况下盲目前进，以极快的速度消耗极其宝贵和不可再生的能源。我们的石油应该如此迅速地被开采出来，以至于出口到其他国家是摆脱的唯一机会吗

Maybe. Or maybe not.

也许吧。 也许不是。



If future output disappoints even by a little, the cascade of ripple effects across the economy as that becomes understood will be extremely painful. But the math clearly shows volumes will disappoint by a lot -- so get ready for a bust for the ages.

如果未来的产出哪怕只有一点点令人失望，人们所理解的经济中的连锁反应将是极其痛苦的。 但是数据清楚地表明，数量会让人很失望---- 所以准备好迎接这个时代的崩溃吧。

kbohip
Yeah, these "thinkers" that worry if their car has enough gas to get them to the grocery store while they leave their front door open and people are stealing everything out of their house always amuse me when they say we are the ones that can't see the big picture.

是的，这些"思考者"担心他们的汽车是否有足够的汽油把他们送到杂货店，而他们却不关前门，人们从他们的房子里偷走所有的东西，当他们说我们是看不到大局的人时，我总是觉得很好笑。



Keter
Whatever you think of the rational for the Iraq war, while the American middle class was paying with lives and treasure for this war for the benefit of the Saudis and another unnamed country in the Middle East, the Saudis were driving the price of oil up to $140 barrel.

无论你认为伊拉克战争的理由是什么，当美国中产阶级为了沙特和另一个中东国家的利益而为这场战争付出生命和财富时，沙特将油价推高到每桶140美元。

Winston Churchill
We are way past peak oil, which should have been called peak cheap oil.Even the Rockerfellas gave up and sold all their oil interests back in 2012.

我们已经过了石油峰值，这应该被称为廉价石油峰值。甚至连洛克菲勒也放弃了，并在2012年卖掉了他们所有的石油权益。



oooBooo
Remember what started the mess was Saddam H. pumping too much oil driving down prices. He had debts to pay from the 1980s war and thus started pumping like mad in the early 90s. Then fell into fedgov's trap. Fedgov said it would look the other way if he invaded Kuwait, then it didn't.

还记得萨达姆引起混乱的原因吗？他开采了太多的油，压低了油价。他有80年代战争的债务要偿还，因此在90年代初开始疯狂地开采，然后 落入了费德戈夫的圈套。费德戈夫说，如果他入侵科威特美国会睁一只眼闭一只眼，但事实并非如此。