Blogs

Eagle Ford - update through October 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 21,912 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region, that started producing since 2008, through October.   Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboard Oil production increased slightly in the Eagle Ford in 2018, as operators completed ~10% more wells than in 2017, based on preliminary data. Once revision data is in, I expect that October production will be close to 1.3 million bo/d. Gas production from these wells is good for almost 6 Bcf/d (toggle ‘Product’ to gas to see this).   Average initial well productivity almost didn’t change year-over-year, as you’ll see in the ‘Well quality’ tab. If you click there on 2018 in the legend, you’ll note that the wells that started last year are so far closely tracking the performance of the 2017 wells. Although newer wells are peaking at more than double the rate than wells that started in 2011/2012, they are also declining faster. I expect that after 2-3 years on production, they have declined to a very similar production rate as those earlier wells had at that age. That becomes especially apparent if you select for example just the wells from 2012 and 2016 (keep the ‘Ctrl’ key in when selecting both of these years), and if you change the axis to a linear scale. I’ll show you more about these decline rates later in this post.   Of the top 5 operators in the Eagle Ford, only the 2 largest (EOG & ConocoPhillips) set new production records in September, The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” overview, the relationship between production rates and cumulative production is revealed. Wells are grouped by the quarter in which production started. I’ve preselected the Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford formations. As I showed last week for the DJ Basin, also here you can see that the decline steepens once wells have reached low levels of production. How large are the decline rates here? To answer this question, I again used our new ‘Terminal decline’ dashboard from our Professional Analytics service. See here the result:     Here the performance is shown of all the horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford, that started production between 2011 and 2014. Only wells are selected that have produced predominantly oil, and which fell below a production rate of 60 bo/d not later than Nov 2015 (this ensures that we have at least 36 months of data for all wells), from which they never recovered. There were 5,628 such wells, from in total 11,554 horizontal oil wells that started in the Eagle Ford in those 4 years. The top chart shows the oil production rate (logarithmic scale) of these wells, by the month since they fell below 60 bo/d. The wells are grouped by the year in which they started. The bottom chart shows the average annual decline of all these wells. Three observations: After annual decline rates have slightly stabilized (after month 26 or so), you can see that the annual decline is close to, or above 20%. Each year, the annual decline rate is higher. Some of this is expected, as younger wells are in an earlier part of their decline curve, where the decline is steeper. But even if you correct for that (e.g. by comparing the performance of 2 consecutive vintages shifted by 12 months), the decline rates of younger wells are higher. In particular, the wells from 2014 never really go below 25% annual decline. Once wells reach a very low production rate (~10 bo/d), the decline rate accelerates again. A special thank you to Mike Shellman for sharing a wealth of articles and oilfield knowledge regarding this topic. Next week we are at the NAPE summit in Houston, so if you happen to be there, please come visit our booth (#2331). We also still have time available earlier in the week for 1-on-1 meetings in Houston, so please contact us if you’re interested in understanding how we might help you.   Tomorrow at 10:30 (EST) we’ll also cover the Eagle Ford in our enelyst chat. Later this week, or early next week, there will be a new update on the Permian Basin.   Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Production data is provided on lease level. Individual well production data is estimated from a range of data sources, including regular well tests, and pending data reports. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2MMYWh2   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Terminal Decline Rates averaging 25-30% in Niobrara - update through October 2018

These interactive presentations contain the latest oil & gas production data, from all 9,508 horizontal wells that started production in Colorado and Wyoming since 2009/2010, through October. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil production in these 2 states set a new high in October, at just over 550 thousand bo/d. Gas production also came in at a record level, at close to 3 Bcf/d.   The year over year growth rate dropped however, compared with the previous year, despite that more wells were completed in the first 10 months of 2018 vs 2017. More wells were needed to offset the decline from wells that came online in 2017, and well productivity also fell a little, based on preliminary data (see the ‘Well quality’ tab).   The DUC count has remained steady in the past year, as you’ll see in the ‘Well status’ dashboard if you only select the DUCs (using the well status selection on the top).   Anadarko, the largest producer in this area, showed a drop in production in the previous 12 months. The numbers 2 to 4 (Noble Energy, Extraction Oil & Gas, and PDC) did break their previous records in October. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” graph, the average cumulative production is plotted against the production rate. Wells are grouped by the quarter in which production started. This time I only selected Weld County (using the ‘County’ filter at the bottom), as it is good for almost 80% of total production,  and I wanted to highlight some interesting things happening here. The first observation is that well productivity appears to have fallen since 2016 Q4/2017 Q1, as wells from later quarters are trending towards slightly lower ultimate recoveries. The second, and probably more important one, is about the terminal decline rates that you can see here. As you follow these curves from wells that started between 2011 and 2015, you’ll see that they start to accelerate downward as lower production levels are reached. You’ll see the same effect if you select the natural gas stream from these wells (‘Product’ selection). That doesn’t bode well for long-term recovery estimates. So how big are these terminal decline rates actually? We’ve just added a new dashboard in our Professional Analytics service, which aims to answer these kind of questions. Here you will see a screenshot of this dashboard, in which all the horizontal wells in Weld County are selected, that started production since 2012. Only wells are selected that fell below a production rate of 40 bo/d, from which they never fully recovered, before November 2015.     You can see 2 graphs here. The one on the top shows the average flow rate of all the 1,354 horizontal wells that met these criteria, versus time (the number of months after they fell below 40 bo/d). The graph on the bottom plots the average terminal decline rate of all these wells. I recommend ignoring the results up to month 20 or so, due to the inherent bias of this selection. However, you can see that a relatively steady state has been reached after 24 months. Between 24 months, and 36 months, which contains data for all these wells, you will find an average annual decline rate between 25 and 30%. This, I believe, is a far higher terminal decline rate than is commonly assumed when making ultimate recovery estimates. In this dashboard, you will have many more options. For example, you can look at all the other shale basins, or at the terminal decline rate of the gas streams, or group these wells by e.g. the year in which they started to see how these terminal decline rates have changed with newer completions. Other basins didn’t show the same high terminal decline rate, but also there they were significant.   Later today in our show at enelyst, at 10:30 EST, we will take a closer look at the latest data from North Dakota, in which we will also examine some findings of this new dashboard. You can join this event here: enelyst ShaleProfile Briefings channel. If you are not an enelyst member yet, you can sign up for free at www.enelyst.com, using the code: “Shale18”   Next week we will have updates on the Eagle Ford, and also the Permian if new data for New Mexico has been released by then.   Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2sS8MF7   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Will Taiwan become Tibet of East Asia?

Beginning of the New Year 2019 saw the Chinese President Xi Jinping  belligerence towards Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (RoC). President Xi Jinping proclaimed that Taiwan unification must be the ultimate goal of any discourse regarding its future and laid out unyielding position that use of force is not ruled out should Taipei asserts full independence. This is not the first time that China openly declared its intention on Taiwan. In December 1995, Chinese officials asked US Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Nye directly what would the US do if China attacked Taiwan. Nye’s response was: “We don’t know and you don’t know. It would depend upon circumstances.” Beijing considers Taiwan( Formosa) as a breakaway province. RoC is self-governed but it has never formally announced independence from Mainland. The Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen had made it clear that the island nation would never consider reunification with China under the terms offered by Beijing. United States lent its weight behind Taipei by sending guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell and the fleet replenishment oiler USNS Walter S.Diehl through Taiwan Strait. It has further heightened tensions between the US and China. Meanwhile, US Pacific Fleet spokesperson Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman told Cable News Network that it was a “routine Taiwan Strait Transit” under international law. On the other hand,Taiwan’s navy showcased its latest long-range surveillance drone as a push to counter China’s increasingly muscular rhetoric. Both these moves are symbolic in nature yet an attempt was made to convey to Beijing that Taiwan will not become Tibet of East Asia. Situated in the West Pacific between Japan and Phillippines, Taiwan is of strategic importance both for China and US. Taiwan (Formosa) lies at the edge of South China Sea shipping lanes. On the eve of Japan’s surrender in the World War-II, the State Department of US published a note on Taiwan which remarked: Strategic factors greatly influence the problem of Formosa. With the exception of Singapore no location in the Far East occupies such a controlling position. Regional powers like Japan in World War-II used Taiwan as a base both for defensive and offensive startegic purposes. It was a very important supply base for Japanese armies in South East Asia during their operations in Second World War. The US Navy commented in 1944 that: The island of Taiwan dominates the China coast and all coastwise shipping between Japan and South Eastern Asia. Its airfields and ports supported the movement of Japanese troops and supplies throughout the Southern theatres of action. For China, Taiwan is not just a matter of territorial sovereignty as it claims but is important from its security point of view. The control of Taiwan would help China’s operations in South China Sea. It can then more effectively assert and settle its territorial claims against Phillippines,Brunei,Vietnam etc. If Beijing succeeds in the unification of Taiwan then it will be able to use its deep water ports for its submarines to venture into Pacific Ocean. This will project China’s power in Pacific and will be a challenge to US naval assests. Beijing knows that if an external power occupies or make a base in Taiwan then it can cut-off China’s trade lines and a naval blockade could be a catastrophe for China’s rise as an economic and military power. When two elephants fight, it is the grass that is trampled. But some 23 million Taiwanese people do not want their fate to be that of grass. Taiwan’s loss of the China seat at the United Nations in 1971 was internationally the culmination of a slow erosion in support for the RoC. History reminds us of the destiny of Tibetans at a time when China was not so powerful economically and militarily. The question is can Taiwan defend itself against China if it really uses the force as claimed by Chinese President Xi Jinping? Today, the Chinese expansion of naval assets and capabilities in South China Sea will definitely alter the dynamics of war should it occur between People’s Republic of China and RoC. With UK trying to overcome Brexit imbroglio and France trying to put its own house in order, US may not get the full support of allies against China over Taiwan. Taiwan is not just a symbol of democracy at the gate of authoritarian Communist China which should be morally supported and militarily protected by Western world but its geographical location has made it a vital piece on global chess board of politics which is being played between US and China. The answer to the future of Taiwan lies in the womb of time but the clock is ticking for Taipei as China flexes its economic, diplomatic and military muscle.      

S

Straight Talk

Marcellus (PA) – update through November 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest gas (and a little oil) production data, from all 8,639 horizontal wells in Pennsylvania that started producing since 2010, through November. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards November gas production showed another big gain, as more than 0.3 Bcf/d was added. Total gas production for the month was 18 Bcf/d, 16% higher than a year ago. The 759 wells that started production in 2018 contributed 6.5 Bcf/d to the November numbers, or 36%. This is typically a far higher percentage in the oil basins, as you can see in our other posts, which is mostly caused by a steeper decline of oil versus gas.   The production profiles of all these wells can be found in the 2nd tab (‘Well quality’). By default, they are averaged by the year in which the wells started production. The bottom plot shows the cumulative production versus time graphs, and they clearly reveal how each year well productivity improved. One main driver has been the increase in reservoir stimulation; wells in 2018 were completed with almost 17 million pounds of proppant, on average, while this was only 4 million pounds six years earlier.   The 2 largest gas operators, Cabot and Chesapeake, both increased their output in November, as you’ll find in the final tab (‘Top operators’). Cabot almost exclusively operates in Susquehanna County, where the best well results can be found. There it is responsible for over 60% of the gas produced. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate Return” overview shows the relationship between gas production rates and cumulative gas production, averaged for all horizontal wells that came online in a certain quarter. The 348 wells that started in Q4 2013 have each recovered 4.6 Bcf of natural gas, and they are still producing at 1.3 MMcf/d, on average. Newer wells appear so far to be on a trajectory to do well above those numbers.   That well productivity has rapidly grown over time is also visible in the 5th tab (‘Productivity over time’). The average cumulative production in the first 2 years is plotted there, and based on this metric performance doubled in just a couple of years.   Early next week we’ll be back with a post on the Niobrara. If you don’t like to wait to get access to the latest data, I have good news for you. In just 1 or 2 weeks, we’ll be launching a new subscription level (‘Basic’), for which you can get access to our analytics platform for a very low fee ($52 per user / month). No need to install anything, full-screen dashboards, maps with all individual horizontal wells plotted, more filtering options and much more.   We’ll be in Houston in the 2nd week of February, for the NAPE summit. Come visit our booth, or contact us if you like to meet us during that week. Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2HEHe02   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

North Dakota – update through November 2018

These interactive presentations contain the latest oil & gas production data from all 14,263 horizontal wells in North Dakota that started production since 2005, through November. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil production in North Dakota dropped 1% m-o-m to 1,376 kbo/d in November, after a record output in October. The main factor behind this drop appears to be the smaller number of wells that went into production in October (119) and November (108), after a busy summer (~140 completions per month).   The 2nd tab (“Well quality”) shows that the wells that came online in 2018 perform slightly better on average than the ones from the year before.   Each of the 5 largest operators produces over 100 thousand barrels of oil per day (gross) in this state (“Top operators”), and all of them increased output in 2018. Together they are responsible for over 40% of all oil produced in November. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows how all these horizontal wells are heading towards their ultimate recovery, with wells grouped by the year in which production started. The graph shows clear improvements in initial well productivity over the last couple of years. Interesting is however also that wells from the 2008-2011 period decline slightly slower than those from 2012-2015. This effect remains even after correcting for refracs (which is possible in our advanced analytics service).   The gas/oil ratio (GOR) has steadily climbed in North Dakota, as is depicted by the orange curve in the bottom graph on the 9th tab (“Gas oil ratio”). The reasons behind that are revealed in the plot above it; the GOR normally climbs over the life of a well, but newer wells are also starting with a higher GOR, and see their GOR rising faster. In the coming days we’ll have a new update on gas production in Pennsylvania, on which we will also report in our chat tomorrow morning on enelyst (10:30 am EST). For these presentations, I used data gathered from the following sources: DMR of North Dakota. These presentations only show the production from horizontal wells; a small amount (about 40 kbo/d) is produced from conventional vertical wells. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2RSy58n   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Get First Access To The Oilprice App!

The Way You Receive Oil & Energy News Is Changing - For The Better. - Be The First To Download Our New App   We are excited to announce the launch of the Oilprice.com app.

With instant access to news and industry data, the app has been designed with the Oilprice Community in mind to deliver to the minute stats and global insight at your fingertips. We are delighted to invite the Oilprice.com Community to be the first to download the free app. The app is now available, free of change, for download through the App Store and Google Play.   App Features Include: Energy News: Featured and trending stories in energy, oil news, alternative energy, finance news, geopolitics and more. Oil Prices: Get 200+ live global oil prices including WTI Crude & Brent Crude as well as OPEC blends, Canadian blends and US blends with price charts and comparison tools. Market Data: Get the latest real-time oil news and price data as well as market analysis at your fingertips. Alert Notifications: Receive daily news alerts from the energy topics and stocks that matter to you. Customizable Stock Alerts: Customize your personalized oil stock portfolio to notify you whenever stock has gone up or down - you set the prices, you set your targets.   The Oilprice App is available for free download at the App Store and Google Play Store. 

For more information and to provide us with feedback please contact
support@oilprice.com

CMOP

CMOP

US - update through September 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from 97,332 horizontal wells in 10 US states, through September 2018. Cumulative oil and gas production from these wells reached 9.7 Gbo and 106 Tcf. West Virginia is deselected in most dashboards, as it has a greater reporting lag. September production data for New Mexico is rather incomplete, with over 100 thousand bo/d still missing. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards   After all revisions are in, oil production from these horizontal wells should come in well above 6 million bo/d for September. The ~8,000 wells that started in the first 9 months of 2018 will then already have contributed ~3 million bo/d in September. Never before in the history of US shale was so much new production capacity added in 9 months. As the total decline of older wells (<2018) was over 2 million bo/d (as shown by the top of the light blue area) in this period, the actual growth rate was a little below 1 million bo/d. If you switch to natural gas (using the ‘Product’ selection), you’ll see that gas production from the same wells never really experienced a drop, and grew by ~15 Bcf/d in the past 2 years to 55 Bcf/d (excluding WV) in September.   Initial well productivity grew steadily over the past 10 years (‘Well quality’ tab), but the rate of improvements appears to have slowed down recently.   You’ll find the status of the more than 100,000 horizontal wells that have been drilled in the ‘Well status’ tab. Only 1% of these wells have been plugged and abandoned so far.   The final dashboard gives an overview of the largest operators. EOG is well in the lead, with around 0.5 million bo/d of operated production capacity. Its September production numbers for New Mexico are highly incomplete, so the final drop should be ignored. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows the relationship between production rates and cumulative production over time. The oil basins are preselected, and the wells are grouped by the year in which production started. The 4,300 wells that started production in 2011 (represented by the red curve) peaked at a rate of 273 bo/d, and they have now declined to 22 bo/d, recovering almost 150 thousand barrels of oil in the meantime (all average numbers). The 5,300 wells that started 5 years later (2016 – light brown curve), peaked at 517 bo/d, and they already recovered the same amount of oil within 22 months, on average. They are on a trajectory to do roughly another 100 thousand barrels of oil, before having declined to a similar production rate of ~20 bo/d. More granular and recent data will be visible after grouping these wells by the quarter or month in which they started production.   Next month we will be at the NAPE summit in Houston. Come visit our booth if you have the chance! Before the NAPE we plan to start offering the Basic version of our ShaleProfile Analytics service. For just a very small annual fee ($624 = $52/month) you can already enjoy all the benefits that this service offers beyond the free blog here, such as maps with the exact location of these wells, full-screen dashboards, and with always access to the latest data.   Early next week we will have a new post on North Dakota, which just released November production data. Production data is subject to revisions. For these presentations, I used data gathered from the sources listed below. FracFocus.org Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Similar as in Texas, lease/unit production is allocated over wells in order to estimate their individual production histories. Montana Board of Oil and Gas New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission North Dakota Department of Natural Resources Ohio Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Texas Railroad Commission. Individual well production is estimated through the allocation of lease production data over the wells in a lease, and from pending lease production data. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Geological & Economical Survey Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2HgzW2F   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

 

Capital Markets... Dive in Now?

The recent market volatility has left investors and capital seekers seeking he same consensus: where does it end and what's the upside?  The age old question continues to perplex both parties.  I'm taking the position from both sides.. first as a former exploration company President who had sought capital from the banks, from P/E firms, mezzanine debt and from the public markets and secondly as a capital provider.  We currently manage substantial amounts of capital that are looking to deploy into the energy sector, so being on both sides in a past and current life, I speak from experience. Oil and gas companies that seek us out for capital come in a number of flavors and sizes.  Typically, they are smaller entities, or juniors.  This is our financing niche.  Their needs are the usual: drill PUDs, re-work, acquire non-cores, get a leg up on OPEX and generally seek growth in fractious times.  In nearly every case, the banks are exhausted as much as the juniors are.  These companies are far too small for the P/E firms to get involved and the old 'Third for a quarter' deal won't cut it.  What to do? As a capital provider, we seek to obviously entreat the best companies we can to provide this dearly needed money.  Some have said that the smaller deals that come in to any facility seeking capital are the deals no one else will touch.  We disagree.  The old saying, "Oil and gas doesn't care who owns it,' serves a point.  Economies of scale are persistent relative to size.  Nearly all the companies we review are sitting on oil, and what better place to produce from than an existing field?  Have the production and a good development plan?  Are these good oil people with a solid history of exploration and exploitation?  We take these into account, among other things as we review and allocate due diligence resources to determine if the underpinnings are there and there's sufficient existing PDPs to support the capital raise over a term. A word about the raise.. it's non-recourse, not a loan, off balance sheet, no equity take out and there's no back-in after payout. Oil companies seek a better, more efficient way to utilize and pay back capital and there is a better way than the old tried and perhaps not so true way... In these times, we feel a floor has been reached and tested market wise.  Wise firms can access wise money now, versus looking for it when the recent 30% drop has been recovered and capital costs and service costs will likely erode portions of this gain. Companies can't afford to hand wring now... it's time to set up for the future and plan capex budgets now.         

Pt.3 The Media - Information sources - Electric/Hydrogen/Natural Gas Vehicles/ Nuclear Energy

Pt.3 The Media - Information sources - Electric/Hydrogen/Natural Gas Vehicles/ Nuclear Energy "Oh dear". This blog is about how to engage positively and effectively with the Media (TV, Radio, Press, Social Media, Bloggers. Vloggers) - mainstream, regional, local, international - from my own "mainstream" experience: e.g. BBC World Service.    The content I use will be controversial and often, given that this is a fossil fuels website, not pleasing to some. All the content is sourced and available in the mainstream Media. My consultancy work is giving Media advice to all industry sectors, face-to-face and via Skype - e.g. DHL. KIA Motors, Nord Stream, UK Independent Schools' Council.  The different Media, like individuals, will often choose the sources of information that reflect their wishes, values and bias. Thus, understanding the (often political) agenda of different Media before you or your company engages with them is extremely important.  Two key professional interests of mine are: 1. Investigating why the Fossil Fuel Industry has never fought back against claims such as: - it is destroying the planet and that CO2 emissions are a Climate problem - "Big Oil" is throwing money to Climate Sceptic individuals and organisations; which is demonstrably not so, but is the result of a clever and long-term campaign by Greenpeace who targetted Exxon some years ago to label it "Evil Empire". 2. The philosophy of science: especially Popper v Kuhn.  Posts will not normally be this long, but here are a few bullet points with regard to the above title and in relation to various comments:   Fossil fuels: - yes, pollution is a factor and is increasingly being limited - CO2, however, is not a pollutant and is vital for life on Earth. - produced and are still producing the high standard of living we expect and want - are not subsidised everywhere, and the use of them is usually very highly taxed to provide national governments with a massive source of income for public services - there are different grades of all these fuels; varying down to low-level pollutants - even coal can be non-polluting: e.g. Professor Rosemary Falcon heads the Sustainable Coal Research Group at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Johannesburg (where Nelson Mandela studied law in the 1950's).   LPG/LNG vehicles: I too drive an LPG vehicle and gas, having done so for years   Renewables:  - are all subsidised and paid for by taxpayers either in their domestic energy bills and in the government subsidies - often both - produce less energy than was used to manufacture, erect and dismantle them after their short life (20-30 yrs). These three processes create large amounts of industrial pollution.    Global energy needs are expected to increase by 250% by 2050 as living standards rise. Estimates vary on global energy use and production - e.g. in 2017 renewables produced 8% of global energy according to BP. The most optimistic projections from the pro-renewables IEA estimate that by 2040 renewables will still represent only 30% of global energy production - and of that the biggest contributors will be Hydro-Electric Power and Waste, not the beloved wind and solar sources. Sources are contradictory and confusing because of inherent political (not scientific) agendas).  On average it seems that global energy use has risen by 150% in the last 20 years, and as a percentage of energy production the world is even more reliant on fossil sources than before.   Solar panelscannot be simply buried in landfill because they contain toxic chemicals such as lead, cadmium, antimony; the glass is usually not pure enough to recycle; plastics are an integral part of construction. The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment”because of  "a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle. Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.” Sources:  (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104162/chinas-ageing-solar-panels-are-goingbe-big-environmental-problem) 40-year veteran of US solar industry  (https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/04/its-time-to-plan-for-solar-panel-recycling-inthe-united-states/) (https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article176294243/Studie-Umweltrisiken-durch-Schadstoffe-in-Solarmodulen.html) Research scientists - German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.   The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there were  about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. (http://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels)   Wind power is even less efficient than solar for all the production reasons above and is more unpredictable as an energy source; kills flying creatures to such an extent that in some areas it has become the "apex predator" where it takes out birds of prey. Nuclear towers do not create such carnage because they do not move and are highly visible.   Nuclear Energy is the cleanest, safest and most reliable energy source we have. When there are problems they can certainly be on a large scale (Three Mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) but result in very few deaths. If you consider CO2 to be a major problem, nuclear energy produces none at all. Ironically, this year (2018) the floating wind turbine erected as at Fukushima as a symbol of renewal is being dismantled because of its high maintenance costs.  "The price tag to remove the ¥15.2 billion turbine, which has an output capacity of 7,000 kilowatts, is expected to be around 10 percent of the building cost. Studies on the two other turbines are due to conclude in fiscal 2018, but the study period is expected to be extended to seek any possibility of commercialization. ... Its utilization rate over the year through June 2018 was 3.7 percent, well below the 30 percent necessary for commercialization. The two other turbines, of different sizes, have utilization rates of 32.9 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively." Source: Japan Times   Nuclear "waste" is in fact a resource and not to be feared! " ... fission waste does not migrate even where there is significant groundwater, and ... ancient waste had none of the multi-layer engineered safeguards that are now developed, nor the careful geological siting." " by far the biggest resource in radwaste is in the transuranics and unburnt uranium. This could be used to increase the energy available from nuclear fuel by several orders of magnitude using fast breeder reactors, but such use is no longer being pursued in many countries, including the UK ([which] used to be the world leader up until the early 1980s), as uranium is too cheap to make it economically attractive at present." Source: Rolls Royce expert and recipient of the Institute of Physics Nuclear Industry Group Lifetime Achievement Award   And no, it can't be used to make a nuclear bomb; and there are much easier ways for terrorist groups to make the usual "dirty" bombs than trying to get hold of nuclear residue. It is calculated that there are about 120,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste in the world - i.e. not enough to fill a soccer stadium, since the start of the nuclear industry in the 1950's. Nuclear use is already part of our daily lives. We already use radio cobalt in irradiating food and medical supplies; strontium or plutonium for generators in space travel; americium in smoke detectors; tritium in emergency-exit signage; various radio isotopes are used to diagnose and treat diseases.  Soon it is expected that we will be able to split further uranium isotopes and all uranium's heavy metal derivatives.  Given that my first interest is helping you and your company to deal with the Media, mainstream and otherwise, it is important to judge your audience and then tailor your information to help them take it in.  My presumption so far here in this blog is that readers are well-informed, wish to be given reasons to reflect, think and debate civilly on what are very important matters affecting how we live. I also presume such readers are thinkers rather than activists. Trigger warning: further topics will include references to and buzz words such as coal, climate change, CO2, sea levels, non-AGW, geological time scales, IPCC, Greenpeace, Big Oil and the like.

Roger Crisp

Roger Crisp

Permian – update through September 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 17,997 horizontal wells in the Permian (Texas & New Mexico) that started producing since 2008/2009, through September. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Last week I planned a post on the Permian, but noticed that September data for New Mexico was still quite incomplete (100 kbo/d, or ~20% of production has not yet been reported). Unfortunately, it still is, but I did not want to delay this update any further. The graph above shows clearly the astonishing rise in oil production in the Permian in the past 2 years, as oil production from horizontal wells more than doubled to over 2.8 million bo/d in September (which will be visible after upcoming revisions). More than 1.5 million bo/d in September came from ~3,200 horizontal wells that started in 2018. In New Mexico a single operator seems to be responsible for most of the missing production in September: EOG, which is also the largest producer in this state. After you exclude EOG from the graph (using the ‘Operator’ selection), you will see that the apparent drop in September has almost disappeared.   In the ‘Well quality’ tab you’ll find the production profiles for all these wells. By default they are grouped and averaged by the year in which they started production. With this setting, you’ll find in the bottom plot that well productivity improved significantly in the past 5 years. Wells that started in 2013 recovered 77 thousand barrels of oil in the first 2 years, on average, while this more than doubled to 183 thousand barrels of oil for wells that started 3 years later. Since 2016 the pace of improvements appears to have slowed down, as you’ll see by following the 2017/2018 curves.   The final tab shows the performance of the leading operators. You’ll see the effects of the acquisition of RSP Permian by Concho, and the missing production for EOG in New Mexico in September. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows the average production rate for these wells, plotted against their cumulative recovery. Wells are grouped by the year in which production started. This kind of plot doesn’t assume any kind of decline behavior, but a harmonic decline (b factor of 1), will show up as a straight line with the given settings. The 2,215 horizontal wells that started in 2016 (light brown curve) are on track to recover each around 200 thousand barrels of oil, once they have declined to an average production rate of 100 bo/d. Newer wells appear to be on track to do slightly better than that. Tomorrow we will have a new show at enelyst (live chat combined with images), where we will take a closer look at the latest Permian data. The show will be available here in the enelyst ShaleProfile Briefings channel. If you are not an enelyst member yet, you can sign up for free at enelyst.com. Early next week we will have a post on all 10 covered states in the US. Production data is subject to revisions. Note that a significant portion of production in the Permian comes from vertical wells and/or wells that started production before 2008, which are excluded from these presentations. For these presentations, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Oil production is estimated for individual wells, based on a number of sources, such as lease & pending production data, well completion & inactivity reports, regular well tests and oil proration data. OCD in New Mexico. Individual well production data is provided. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2LUFMoY   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Eagle Ford - update through September 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 21,698 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region, that started producing since 2008, through September. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Although from the above graph it appears that oil production in the Eagle Ford has moved sideways in 2018, due to the typical reporting lag in Texas, I expect to see that after revisions production from horizontal wells will come in at 1.3 – 1.4 million bo/d in September. That would be highest level in the past 2.5 years, but still well below the 2015 peak.   One reason for that is that well productivity hasn’t increased so much in the past 4 years, as you’ll see in the ‘Well quality’ tab. This despite that laterals have gotten longer (by about 1/3rd), and more frac sand is typically used nowadays (it more than doubled). You’ll be able to normalize for these factors in our online Analytics service.   The basin is aging rather rapidly, and in September almost 80% of these horizontal wells were producing below 50 bo/d, as can be seen in the bottom plot of the ‘Well status’ overview. However, that number does include about 3,000 gas wells as well (filtering these is a subscription-only feature).   The 2 leading operators, EOG & ConocoPhillips, either set new production records in September, or were close (‘Top operators’).   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” overview, the relationship between production rates and cumulative production is revealed. Wells are grouped by the year in which production started. I’ve preselected the Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford formations. As you can see, wells from the 2010-2012 time frame are now on average below 20 bo/d, after having recovered 120-150 thousand barrels of oil (and 0.7-1 Bcf of natural gas). Wells that started in 2017 peaked at a rate of 664 bo/d, and declined to a level of 174 bo/d in the next 8 months, having recovered just over 100 thousand barrels of oil. More recent and granular data can be found if you select to group the wells by quarter or month of first production (using the ‘Show wells by’ selection).   The WSJ just published an interesting article in which they compared actual verses operator reported well performance. Many of our subscribers and readers have told us that they value our services due to the independent and accurate reporting of production data. In February we will be at the NAPE summit in Houston, so please stop by our booth if you are joining this event as well.   Early next week we will have a post on the Permian again, on which we also have a more detailed update in our upcoming enelyst chat on Tuesday.   Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Production data is provided on lease level. Individual well production data is estimated from a range of data sources, including regular well tests, and pending data reports. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2s048ED   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Marcellus (PA) – update through October 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest gas (and a little oil) production data, from all 8,567 horizontal wells in Pennsylvania that started producing since 2010, through October. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards New production records have been set in the 2nd half of every year since 2010, and 2018 was no different. Gas production in October from horizontal wells came in at 17.6 Bcf/d, about 20% higher than October 2017 (14.1 Bcf/d). The 687 wells that started production in the first 10 months of 2018 already contributed more than 1/3rd of total gas production in October (6 Bcf/d).   Well productivity made a big gain in 2017 (see ‘Well quality’ tab), but it did not rise much further in 2018, based on preliminary data. Newer wells recover on average more than 4 Bcf in the first 2 years on production, compared with 3 Bcf from wells that started in 2016.   All major operators increased production in 2018, except Chesapeake (‘Top operators’). The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate Return” overview shows the relationship between gas production rates and cumulative gas production, averaged for all horizontal wells that came online in a certain year. The improved performance over the past years is clearly visible here. If you change the ‘Show wells by’ selection to ‘quarter’, you can see more recent and granular data. It will also reveal that newer wells peak at a level of over 12,000 Mcf/d, more than three times the rate of the wells that started in 2012.   The 2nd tab (‘Cumulative production ranking’), ranks all counties in Pennsylvania by cumulative gas production. If you change the ranking to ‘Well’, you’ll see the cumulative production for each of those 8,500+ wells. The most productive one is above 20 Bcf.   Later this week we will have a new post on the Permian. We wish you all a Happy New Year!   Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2s048ED   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

 

Mombasa Port a gateway to South Sudan for China

Former Chinese Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping presented his “Cat Theory” to introduce a capitalist market economy for Mainland China. As per the theory “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white;as long as it catches mice,it’s a good cat.” The “Cat Theory” which he put forth was to convince policy makers for the radical shift in economic policies. “Cat Theory” is also relevant if one looks at the way China is pursuing its geo-political interests using its economic clout. There is one more distinct quality about the cat which makes it a stealth killer. When the cat advances towards its prey it hides its claws.     Kenya is latest in a series of nations to feel the claws of Chinese debt. Latest report attributed to Auditor General suggests that strategic Mombasa Port could land up in the hands of Chinese Bank, EXIM Bank if Kenya fails to repay the loan amount. Though, the Audtior General Edward Ouko has issued a denial. But it does not mean that Mombasa port will not become Chinese one day as we have seen the example of how Sri Lanka handed over Hambantota port to China to pay off its debt. To sustain higher economic growth China needs unfettered access to raw materials for its factories and a market to export its finished goods. At a time when China is facing pressure from United States of America over trade,Africa offers tremendous opportunities for Chinese economy. Infrastructure investment in Africa reflects China’s decades-old strategy of using soft power. More recent investments in Kenya and Ethiopia represent an extension of the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). BRI is a trillion-dollar investment strategy which focusses on developing transportation sector and infrastructure, particularly in Eurasia region but also in East Africa. The amount of Chinese loans to Kenya has grown tenfold in the five years since China unveiled its Belt and Road Initiative. In May 2014, Kenya and China inked Sh 327 billion railway line agreement. According to the terms of the agreement,China had to finance 85 per cent of the total cost through Export and Import (EXIM) Bank while Kenya had to bear the remaining 15 per cent of the projects’ cost. The rail line pened in May-2017. China financed Nairobi-Mombasa Railway link is touted as the biggest infrastructure project in the history of independent Kenya and is a part of Kenya Railways Corporation’s new Standard gauge railway (SGR) line. The Mombasa-Nairobi rail connectivity will cut down travel time by half. It will benefit passengers and cargo transportation. The SGR project is expected to link Mombasa to Rwanda with a branch line to Juba in  South Sudan in future. This Mombasa-Nairobi railway line will give China access to South Sudan in near future. The oil production of South Sudan is dominated by Chinese oil majors. China National Petroloeum Corporation (CNPC) pumps nearly all of South Sudan’s oil production. After cessation in 2011,both Sudan and South-Sudan are now mutually dependent on oil revenues for their economic survival. South Sudan is landlocked and has 75 percent of the oil reserves. The oil from the fields of South Sudan is transported through 1600 kms pipeline to reach export terminals in Port Sudan and then it reaches to refiners in China. On August 30th 2018 South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit paid a visit to China National Petroleum Corporation Headquarters and had talks with Wang Yilin about further deepening oil and gas cooperation. A memorandum was also signed after talks to boost existing production and consider acquisitions of new acreage. The high profile visit signifies the closeness of South Sudan and China. Mombasa-Nairobi link when  it will be joined with Juba in South Sudan through branch line then it will open an alternate route for Chinese companies and South-Sudan for trade and export of Oil. Moreover, cost is critical in the production of goods and to remain competitive in the globalized economy. Fuel is one such factor that has cascading effect on the entire supply chain right from manufacturing to retail. In September, 2018 Sudan Ministry of Petroleum signed an agreement with three oil companies operating in Sudan and South Sudan to pay a transit fees of $14 per barrel. One of the companies that signed the agreement is China National Petroleum Corporation. In addition to it, if oil is shipped through Sudan, Chinese companies will also have to pay fees for marine terminal usage. Therefore, opening up of an alternate supply route using Mombasa port and railway link will give an edge to China. Therefore, Mombasa is a strategically important port for China as it will be a gateway to South Sudan.  

S

Straight Talk

 

MARKETS AND CRUDE PRICES CRASHING; A NEW ROI OPPORTUNITY

IMPROVING ROI THROUGH TREND ANALYSIS is a hallmark of prudent financial analysts and CEO's, often leading to long, prosperous tenures. With rising sentiments surrounding the negative impacts of fossil fuels, and a reluctance of oil, gas and coal producers to recognize, let alone embrace global trends and zero emission synfuel technologies that could provide substantial market lead and much higher earnings for less cost, few if any industry CEO's today will still hold their title in 2-5 years, as only those firms offering fuel products which align with public sentimentl offered at a much lower price and cater to a changing political landscape will remain profitable.

CM

ParisPlans

 

Reactions to Delaware Basin news shows misunderstanding of petroleum economics (or the end of OPEC) by Dr. Daniel Fine

The full article is here-> https://www.daily-times.com/story/money/industries/oil-gas/2018/12/18/delaware-basin-news-reveals-public-misunderstanding-oil-industry-economics/2282224002/ "This writer has warned that world oil demand is sluggish and imprecise with only references to legacy guesswork that the developing world plus China demand will support prices long term or forever. Yet, world oil consumption has increased only 5 percent in the last 10 years.   OPEC, with Saudi Arabia as its leader, has expired as the world administrator of the price of crude oil. At its December meeting in Austria, Qatar quit after nearly 70 years and announced concentration in LNG production and world export as the existing market leader. OPEC emerged with a serious factional split between OPEC original and OPEC with Russia. There would have been no agreement without Russia and its old Russian Federation members as producers. Moscow is the new world oil price-setter indirectly while OPEC Original becomes a collaborator in cartel for now. Simply put, Saudi Arabia no longer is the “residual supplier” alone. The production roll-back of 1.2 barrels per day by both “OPEC” is not enough for “balance” supply and demand for world crude oil.  It is being tested daily by commodity traders. In a briefing to New Mexico independent and small producers before the meeting in Austria, this writer warned that 1.7 million b/d was needed for balancing stabilization. Without that size of a production and export reduction, the average price of WTI oil in 2019 will average $50 per barrel. Nearing 12 million b/d and over the Permian producers voluntarily will be required by this price to revise capital spending and place production into DUC (non-completions) and storage. There is doubt that the export of tight or shale oil would continue if the Brent price falls lower and loses its premium over WTI. A net cutback of Permian between 500,000 to 750,00 b/d should be a non-OPEC response to an oil glut even more serious than 2014. Saudi Arabia is untouched as an American strategic ally in confronting Iran in the Middle East as a hegemonic threat."

RB

bluewill

North Dakota – update through October 2018

These interactive presentations contain the latest oil & gas production data from all 14,162 horizontal wells in North Dakota that started production since 2005, through October. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil production in North Dakota climbed to 1,392 kbo/d in October, a month-on-month increase of more than 2%, and again a new record for the state. In the first 10 months this year 1,045 wells were brought online, which was more than in each of the two years before.   The 2nd tab (“Well quality”), shows that recent wells are performing slightly better than those from 2017, which recovered on average 160 thousand barrels of oil in the first year on production. In the “Well status” tab you can find the status of all these wells. By selecting the status ‘First flow’, you’ll find that 112 wells started producing in October (vs. 153 in September).   All leading operators have grown production in 2018 (“Top operators” tab). ConocoPhillips has almost taken over the 2nd spot from Whiting.   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:   This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows how all these horizontal wells are heading towards their ultimate recovery, with wells grouped by the quarter in which production started. It reveals that the wells that started in Q3 2017, marked by the dark green curve at the top, have shown so far the best performance, although the wells from 2018 are closely tracking a similar path.   The 2nd tab (‘Cumulative production ranking’), ranks all wells (from unconventional reservoirs) by cumulative production. The top 2 wells have produced each more than 1.6 million barrels of oil, and each of them still produces at a decent rate (>100 bo/d). Five more wells have also produced more than 1 million barrels of oil so far. The median well has produced a little below 200 thousand barrels of oil.   The ‘Productivity over time’ dashboard shows clearly how well productivity (as measured by the cumulative oil or gas production in the first x months), has increased in the past few years. We have a similar dashboard in our online analytics service, which allows you to normalize production, and which also shows the trends in well design (lateral length & proppant loading). It offers the possibility to quickly compare the performance of operators over time, in relation with how each has changed its completion practices. We will have a new post on the Marcellus just after Christmas. In our chat on enelyst, tomorrow (Dec 18th) at 10:30 am EST, we will take a closer look at the Bakken. If you are not yet an ign up for free at: www.enelyst.com, using the code: “Shale18”.enelyst member, you can s For these presentations, I used data gathered from the following sources: DMR of North Dakota. These presentations only show the production from horizontal wells; a small amount (about 30 kbo/d)  is produced from conventional vertical wells. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2SRAuN9   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

US - update through August 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from 96,273 horizontal wells in 10 US states, through August. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Cumulative oil and gas production from these wells reached 9.5 Gbo and 104 Tcf. Ohio and West Virginia are deselected in most dashboards, as they have a greater reporting lag. Oil production from horizontal wells in these states grew by almost 2 million bo/d in the 2 years through August. This growth rate was similar as in the boom years of 2013-14. The Permian was responsible for most of this gain, which you’ll see if you show the production data by ‘Basin’ (using the ‘Show production by’ selection). Natural gas production has been setting new records as well during those 2 years and was above 47 Bcf/d in the basins we cover.   The steady increases in well productivity are shown in the ‘Well status’ tab, where all the oily basins are preselected. The horizontal wells that started in 2018 are so far closely tracking the performance of the ones from 2017.   In the final tab you will find the production histories and location of the largest shale operators. We’ve made a change in this dashboard; now the operators are ranked by their total production in the past 12 months (and not by their total historical production). This makes especially a big difference in the Permian, where several operators have recently increased production at a rapid rate. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:   This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows the relationship between production rates and cumulative production over time. The oil basins are preselected, and wells are grouped by the quarter in which production started. Since about 2010 wells have been tracking ever larger ultimate recoveries. The ~1,300 horizontal wells that started in Q4 of 2016 appear so far among the best performers; they have recovered on average 160 thousand barrels of oil and are now at a production rate of ~110 bo/d (from a peak rate of 570 bo/d). These are of course averages, and there are major differences between basins, operators and formations. Major factors behind the changes in well performance are the increases in lateral lengths and the larger frac jobs. In our online analytics service, it is possible to normalize for these factors. Feel free to request a demo, in which we will discuss your interests, or 10-day trial. We sometimes get the question about what we do with wells when they stop producing. In these cases we keep adding 0 production records, to make sure that wells don’t suddenly drop out of the equations, which would lead to a survivorship bias. You can verify this, as the exact well count is shown in the tooltips that appear above the production profiles (this is also represented in the thickness of the curves). Tomorrow at 9:30am EST we will again host a show at enelyst, in which we’ll take a closer look at the Niobrara basin. Join us in the ShaleProfile channel.   Early next week I will have a new post on North Dakota, which will release October production data by the end of this week. Production data is subject to revisions. For these presentations, I used data gathered from the sources listed below. FracFocus.org Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Similar as in Texas, lease/unit production is allocated over wells in order to estimate their individual production histories. Montana Board of Oil and Gas New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission North Dakota Department of Natural Resources Ohio Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Texas Railroad Commission. Individual well production is estimated through the allocation of lease production data over the wells in a lease, and from pending lease production data. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Geological & Economical Survey Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2EbfM6U   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

OPEC in crisis

We where supposed to have a deal on Thursday with OPEC so what happened? If you found a good deal on a house, would you delay the closing? You would if you saw some problems with the deal. Well what kinds of problems do we have with OPEC cutting productions and why wasn't it made today, after all the whole world is waiting. For the prices to stop going into a free fall and hit my $34 target, they need to cut production, Saudi by about 2 Mill barrels and Russia by 300,000 barrels, or at least 200,000 barrels. Well Russia did not have an answer today? Why? Well lets see where Russia Oil fields are?  Well this looks like a very cold place, if im not mistaken it gets to -70 Celsius in the winter. Ok so whats the problem? If you live in Northern Canada, you know you need to not turn off your heat in the winter to your pipes wont freeze. Well guess what, Russia won't be able to cut production in the winter, and it will need to wait until temps are above freezing, maybe March / April 2019.  So that means Russia wont be able to cut, so why should the Saudis cut, so they will cut im comparison with Russias cuts, which wont be enough to stop the fall of Crude Prices.

JJ

Top Oil Trader

Why OPEC has little effect

The fact that Qatar will leave next month, will be a blow for OPEC. This will weaken them in their ability to enforce production cuts from all its members. Lets also remember US is investigating OPEC for price manipulation. Russia is not part of OPEC and can refuse to cut production. Shale oil is getting more efficient, selling oil at $10 under par. In Canada its now $43 under par. Bottom line is, oil prices are in a free fall. 

JJ

Top Oil Trader

Permian – update through August 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 17,650 horizontal wells in the Permian (Texas & New Mexico) that started producing since 2008/2009, through August. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil production in the Permian from horizontal wells has continued to rise at an astonishing pace, adding about 1 million bo/d in production capacity in the 12 months through August, to about 2.7 million bo/d (with upward revisions coming). The main driver behind this growth is the high level of completion activity; so far more than 2,800 horizontal wells have been completed this year, double the level of just 2 years ago, and 40% higher than last year. As shown by the blue area in August, those wells that started so far this year were already contributing to more than half of the total output in that month.   Well productivity has not changed by much in the past 2 years, as shown in the ‘Well quality’ tab. The wells that started in 2018 are so far tracking a recovery slightly ahead of the average 2016 well, which is on a path to recover about 200 thousand barrels of oil in the first 30 months on production (and hitting that level with a flow rate of ~100 bo/d).   Concho finalized the acquisition of RSP Permian in July, and is now the leading unconventional oil producer in the Permian (see ‘Top operators’), just ahead of Pioneer Natural Resources.   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:   This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows the average production rate for these wells, plotted against their cumulative recovery. Wells are grouped by the quarter in which production started. The improvements in recovery trajectories over the past 8 years are clearly visible here, driven by major changes in well design (longer laterals, bigger frac jobs). However, since early 2016 these trajectories have not shown further clear gains, even though younger wells are still peaking at a higher rate than before. Later today (04.12.'18) we will have a new show at enelyst (live chat combined with images), where we will take a closer look at the Eagle Ford, on which we reported last week. The show will be available here in the enelyst ShaleProfile Briefings channel. If you are not an enelyst member yet, you can sign up for free at enelyst.com.   Early next week I will have a post on all 10 covered states in the US. If you are considering to subscribe to our data or analytics service, don’t wait too long! Starting from January 1st, we will raise our prices with a few percent. Request a trial or a demo here, or contact us. Production data is subject to revisions. Note that a significant portion of production in the Permian comes from vertical wells and/or wells that started production before 2008, which are excluded from these presentations. For these presentations, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Oil production is estimated for individual wells, based on a number of sources, such as lease & pending production data, well completion & inactivity reports, regular well tests and oil proration data. OCD in New Mexico. Individual well production data is provided. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2EeYuH2   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Quatar leaves OPEC

There has been lots of rift between the Saudis and Qatar, for quite some time. Saudi Arabia is accusing Qatar of financing terrorism. The Saudis are trying to give Qatar lots of problems, and Qatar fought back, by damaging OPEC and leaving. This will be the beginning of the unraveling of OPEC as I predict more nations to leave OPEC. This will also give OPEC less control of oil prices. Therefore any production cuts from OPEC in the future could soon become meaningless.

JJ

Top Oil Trader

 

Analysis: Trump and Saudi collision on oil, and Bingaman’s return to Santa Fe

The full article is here-> https://www.daily-times.com/story/money/industries/oil-gas/2018/11/25/analysis-trump-and-saudi-collision-oil-bingamans-return-santa-fe/2015081002/ "In an earlier column, readers overseas benefited from this writer’s forecast that crude oil prices would fall dramatically because most commodity traders got it wrong. Simply, this column’s analysis was the buying of oil assumed a shortage would result once the sanctions against Iran would be activated the first week of November.    President Trump wanted lower oil prices with OPEC and Saudi Arabia pumping more. Two weeks ago, a call from the Middle East confirmed readers of the column had followed the analysis in the Energy Magazine and sold Brent oil — and profited.   Oil has slumped under $60 as the delusion of a shortage vanished. In the November issue column, this writer made a call: the oil price would reach $50 as a low. There is no change in that forecast. The price in the commodity market for WTI crude would touch in the very high $40 range before the Saudi-led production cut-back is realized. Why? Again, too much capacity to produce too much oil for demand. What's the impact on SW oil? Oil demand without commodity traders’ bets on the sanctions against Iranian oil production and export contradicts flagging demand. Some Southwest shale producers, faced with discounts on domestic sales, are exporting oil to world markets and capturing the higher Brent price or differential between the WTI priced Midland domestic and the Brent price for the World.     But this would shift Southwest tight oil into a world market where such supply also chases weaker demand. This switches U.S. oil into world oil as exports and diverts it from going into U.S. storage. Unlike the last three price sell-offs Saudi Arabia, speaking for OPEC, is strangely silent on calling on non-OPEC producers join it in lowering production or “balancing” the market.      Quite the opposite. Led by shale producers in the Delaware (New Mexico) Basin in the Permian complex, United State production approaches 12 million barrels per day, a historic high and number one position against the Middle East and Russia."

RB

bluewill

Eagle Ford - update through August 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 21,540 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region, that started producing since 2008, through August. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Since the low point two years ago, oil production in the Eagle Ford has kept growing. I expect that after revisions August production will eventually come in at around 1.3 million bo/d (~100 kbo/d higher than shown now).   Natural gas production follows a very similar pattern. If you switch ‘Product’ to gas, you’ll find that in 2018 total gas production was just below 6 Bcf/d. The underlying decline is clearly visible in this graph; you can see that the horizontal wells from before 2015 peaked at over 1.6 million bo/d in Dec 2014, and that the same group produced just 0.3 million bo/d in August.   The main reason for the recent increase in oil production is not higher well productivity, as this has not significantly changed in the past 2 years (see ‘Well quality’). But about 5 wells have been completed every day in 2017 & 2018, on average, versus just 4 in 2016.   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” overview, the relationship between production rates and cumulative production is revealed. Wells are grouped by the year in which production started. Declines here are steeper than in the Permian or the Bakken, and that means that a greater part of the oil EUR is recovered in the first year on production (about half). I wanted to have a closer look at the well performance of the two leading operators, EOG & ConocoPhillips. Here you find this comparison, for horizontal wells that started between 2014 & 2017, taken from our ShaleProfile Analytics service. For each operator & year combination, you can see the performance curve on the right plot. Striking here is the difference in well behavior. EOGs wells decline in a fairly straight line from the peak, while the wells operated by ConocoPhillips are able to maintain a higher flow rate for several months, before they display a steepening of the decline. Early next week we will have a post on the Permian again.   Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Production data is provided on lease level. Individual well production data is estimated from a range of data sources, including regular well tests, and pending data reports. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2Q2eRwV   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile