re: Slate Article: Landman Is the Perfect Show for Our Times

quote:

---

Slate Article:

---

Stopped here

quote:

---

the only absolute truth in the show is that we can’t live without the oil.. that fact will never Change in our lifetime or my grandchildren’s who aren’t more than a dream

---

If your point is that we cannot suddenly remove the hydrocarbons that are powering the world without a catastrophe ensuing, then you are correct. But if you think that if we ran out of oil gradually over the next 100 years we’d face a catastrophe , then you are probably wrong.

Between renewables and nuclear we could power the world without hydrocarbons. It would be more expensive, but if it was gradual we could do it. As far as your undreamt of grandchildren lifespans? I’m guessing you mean within the next 150 years. I would not bet on that either way. But if the anthropogenic global warming folks are halfway right we will have ditched hydrocarbons by then. Big if, that.

quote:

---

And that right there sums up the author’s filter through which he/she/they view everything in the world including simple entertainment.

---

Yeah

Article just drips with smug

The comic relief in Landman, to me, is Nate. That dude is subtly hilarious.

quote:

---

There is more truth and accuracy in this show than you either would like, or are capable of, acknowledging.

---

They drastically over simplify the technical conversations (because it sounds cool and gives the layperson some background) while overexaggerating violence and death, while underexaggerating the day to day smaller injuries and dangerous situations. And those are the cleanest drill sights and well heads in history and I have no idea how they made Midland look interesting. And if a landman ever lost the tip of a finger, it would be from a jammed fax machine or getting it slammed in the trunk lid while trying to unload 6 boxes of 118 page contracts.

quote:

---

The portrayal of the personalities from the trenches to the top floor of the office are spot on.

---

If anything, they are more interesting in real life. And this is from someone who spent less than a year in that field.

quote:

---

If your point is that we cannot suddenly remove the hydrocarbons that are powering the world without a catastrophe ensuing, then you are correct. But if you think that if we ran out of oil gradually over the next 100 years we’d face a catastrophe , then you are probably wrong.

---

You ever really look and think about everything around you every single day? Because if you do, then realize it all contains oil and it’s by-products. There’s a direct correlation between modern society, the industrial age beginning and the development of oil. That’s not changing

quote:

---

Did Young and the Restless end or something? Why do we need another Sheridan show?

---

the same guy that started the nickelback hate online because it was the cool thing to be a part of

Sheridan has some of the best movies and tv shows created in the last 9 years. What are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Oh look, another clown that thinks oil is only used for energy.

---

Having made quite a bit of money in the oil & gas and petrochemicals industries, I’m quite familiar.

There was a time that tires had to be made of rubber. When their rubber supply was cut off Germans began to work on another way. Now, tires aren’t made of rubber. There is not a product you use that could not be substituted for something not made of hydrocarbons. Mater artium necessitas.

Steel tires replace rubber

Point remains, rubber tires can be replaced, as can every single product you use that’s made with hydrocarbons.

You are a modern day Charles Duell

quote:

---

In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because… “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

---

quote:

---

I'm confident you can provide examples of hydrocarbons being replaced by non-oil-derived compounds that are capable of scaling to equivalent production levels without being prohibitively expensive

---

I’m confidant I cannot, which I implied in my first post, which said it will be more expensive.

“Prohibitively” is a relevant term. I said that if oil and gas were phased out gradually over 100 years it would not be “catastrophic”, another relative term. I certainly think it would make life a lot more expensive.