Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 5:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 5:59 am

You couldn't tell me what it meant.

Being that you are a stupid little ****, you should stay quiet.

Try again, Idiot Legacy:

I already posted that.   Less see ya stupid **** legacy admissission.  Your claim is production is down.  That link says US production was just over 13.4 million barrels per day.  It then says production will average 13.4 million barrels per day in both 25 and 26.

******* ****, this is why you are are a failed finance idiot living alone Ina **** duplex.

Your thread title:

 "U.S. Oil Production Is Falling And The Rate Will Accelerate."

Really?  The same source you posted as I did says it will remain the same the next two years.  You are a **** idiot.  

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 6:09 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 6:09 am

 


You run from all questions, even your own words.

 



 

         
 
 

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 6:28 am

Try again, Idiot Legacy:

Your thread title:

 "U.S. Oil Production Is Falling And The Rate Will Accelerate."

Really?  The same source you posted as I did says it will remain the same the next two years.  You are a **** idiot.

I even highlighted it for him in his own **** article. 
 

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 6:28 am

Try again, Idiot Legacy:

Your thread title:

 "U.S. Oil Production Is Falling And The Rate Will Accelerate."

Really?  The same source you posted as I did says it will remain the same the next two years.  You are a **** idiot.

Tiny,

They are issuing downward revisions, and remain behind the curve....


 

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am

Tiny,

They are issuing downward revisions, and remain behind the curve....


 

 

Really?  So why post the same citation I did that shows productivity will remain the same this year and next year?  

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:38 am

Really?  So why post the same citation I did that shows productivity will remain the same this year and next year?

Post the thread title.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 7:53 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:53 am

Post the thread title.

 

I already did:

viewtopic.php?p=2772275#p2772275

 Blackvegetable » Today, 6:59 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 6:59 am
You couldn't tell me what it meant.

Being that you are a stupid little ****, you should stay quiet.
Try again, Idiot Legacy:I already posted that.   Less see ya stupid **** legacy admissission.  Your claim is production is down.  That link says US production was just over 13.4 million barrels per day.  It then says production will average 13.4 million barrels per day in both 25 and 26.

******* ****, this is why you are are a failed finance idiot living alone Ina **** duplex.Your thread title:

 "U.S. Oil Production Is Falling And The Rate Will Accelerate."

 

Really?  The same source you posted as I did says it will remain the same the next two years.  You are a **** idiot.  

If you are too stupid to read posts that question your idiocy stop replying.  
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am

Tiny,

They are issuing downward revisions, and remain behind the curve....

U.S. crude oil production. Declining oil prices have contributed to U.S. producers slowing their drilling and completion activity this year. As a result, we forecast U.S. crude oil production will decline from an all-time high of just over 13.4 million barrels per day (b/d) in the second quarter of 2025 (2Q25) to less than 13.3 million b/d by 4Q26. On an annual basis, we now forecast crude oil production will average 13.4 million b/d in both 2025 and 2026.
 

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 7:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:59 am

I already did:


 

Then you already answered your question. 

Cannonpointer » 16 Jul 2025, 7:15 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2025, 7:15 pm

I don't smoke it, and I've met plenty of people who shouldn't. 

But painting everyone with the same brush is the mark of a midwit.

like all of us Jew cock lubbers?              midwit...

   
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 8:08 am

Then you already answered your question.

Umm, the source you posted, the same as mine, says the B/D are going to be the same.  Not seeing a projected acceleration according to the source. 

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 7:05 am

Tiny,

They are issuing downward revisions, and remain behind the curve....


 

Which "they"?

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 8:35 am

Umm, the source you posted, the same as mine, says the B/D are going to be the same.  Not seeing a projected acceleration according to the source.

Their projections are less reliable than their reporting on actual events.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 8:50 am

Their projections are less reliable than their reporting on actual events.

Staged actual events globally going forward so far, don't accurate reflect the natural evolving process daily here.

Intellectual East on a rotating planet only covers 12 hours a rotation between Greenwich Prime meridian and International dateline midnight to noon each rotation noon is over Greenwich prime meridian and international dateline changes end of the day with tomorrow arrived noon to midnight in the western hemisphere of each rotation forward now.

12 hours PM is yesterday and tomorrow on the 0 degree longitude prime meridian regardless year has 365 or 366 days in 52 weeks of 7 degrees of social deception governing people cradle to grave now.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 8:50 am

Their projections are less reliable than their reporting on actual events.

and now your spin begins....

*Huey » 17 Jul 2025, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 9:06 am

and now your spin begins....

How do I "spin" an 8% reduction in rig count?

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 10:14 am

How do I "spin" an 8% reduction in rig count?

1. "I posted my definition of survivorship bias..." To which I will reply with the usual and the video. 
2. Continue with your step 4 evasion
3. Continue to copy me



Either A, B, C, or D.

Let me break this down for your dumb ***. You see the 4 options to the question? Every option includes your definition, but only one is an example of survivorship bias. Your definition was half assed. Like all of your content.

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.

or

"Sampling error"

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Vegas » 17 Jul 2025, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 10:30 am

1. "I posted my definition of survivorship bias..." 



3. Continue to copy me

 

What a cornhole.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 10:14 am

How do I "spin" an 8% reduction in rig count?

I'm sorry.....your thread title, which I have posted, is production falling.  The same citation I posted you also posted.  the B/D are the same for this year and last year.

And yeah, I know there are less rigs.  Rmember, we discussed the reason why oil production was up with less rigs due to technologies developed over the past decade. 

Blackvegetable » 17 Jul 2025, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2025, 10:34 am

What a cornhole.

Am I wrong?