No one interested in investing looks at money so simplistically.
A muni bond would have yielded $.50, but you still have the underlying asset, so it isn't a loss, its a guaranteed return of 50% every 10 yrs, until the bond matures (you get your $1 back) or is defaulted on.
The SP500 doesn't guarantee anything, and there are 10 yr periods where it has negative growth.
As for it being a muni bond, the risk is low but still there. Municipalities do in fact default sometimes.
There’s reasons why other investments exist and one is the risk of the investment. Municipal bonds are really stable and some investors just want predictable returns and will sacrifice overall returns for stability and lower risk.
Oil investments aren’t municipal bonds, but I expect most oil investors want stable returns.
So if you buy a $1M bond for $850k, but then interest rates go up and the value of the bond drops to $650k, then you've lost money through opportunity cost, but you'll still get your $1M at maturity.
Not that different with oil fields. If you assume it will produce X barrels, but only produces 20%*X barrels, not only is the money you're making lower, but the value of the oil field also drops (since its value is dependent upon production potential).
But this info isn’t enough to decide anything without the current value of the investment. If the investment is $0 then that’s horrible. If it’s $1 then it’s paid out 50% over ten years so not that great. But if it’s $2, then that’s a good investment.
The fact that this crucial information is missing from the article makes me think the author is an idiot or excluding it because it doesn’t support his position.
You generate assets during that period and the potential to pump oil. Same way that you invest money to a startup with 0 revenues.