Why do oilfields take damage when production is paused?

[Mike Shellman + 548]

To stay out of the shale oil business does not make me smart, trust me. All your predictions and models will likely come true, Dennis...when the US shale oil industry is nationalized and the Federal government owns it, and funds it. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

45 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

I am not allowed the luxury of what if's, Dennis; I am required to deal with reality 24/7. "If" your scenario were to come true and all debt was wiped clean, say from the Midland Basin, and the price was guaranteed $70,  my advice to my client would be to stay out of the shale oil business. Get out, stay out and never come back.

No oil price can ever be guaranteed; it's a world oil market, not an American market. Even at $70 my client would still be dependent on credit and that does not work...if you've been paying attention, that should be clear. I'd ask him why in the hell he thinks he can borrow more capital going forward. Productivity is waning already in the Midland Basin and as producers move off onto flanks, economics will get worse. As that basin declines, GOR goes up,  gas is the metric to use, not oil; can your gas, Mr. Client, compete with APP Basin gas? No. Then there is water for frac use and water for disposal. It's a desert, sir and all that tremblin' is problematic. There is also American politics to deal with in the future, and liberal dumb asses that can't think past next week. There are a dozen other reasons I would say to my client to bury his money in the back yard with the dog bones. 

For Americans who can't stand the thought of not having shale oil in their lives, best prepare for nationalization. That's the ONLY way it works going forward. Good luck with that. 

 

 

I was wondering when we might hear from you. Hope all is well with you and yours!

[Ding Ray Chung + 8]

11 hours ago, Ding Ray Chung said:

 

I understand. And what I am saying is: 1. operating wells will not be that cheap if prices are at ~$70, even if they are still under BK administration. If you are saying to buy them out for pennies now and wait for the $70 price, then you have to make a good case to Mr. Billionaire that they can be shut-in safely, in addition to making the case that oil price will be $70 and stable.  2. Leases could be negotiated, but they are a small part of the economics. 3. DUC may be the most attractive asset at some point, when it becomes clearer that oil prices are rebounding, but before Wall Str money has started moving back-in and driving the DUCs and other asset prices up.

That’s my opinion, but I am not a billionaire,either.

[D Coyne + 305]

10 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

To stay out of the shale oil business does not make me smart, trust me. All your predictions and models will likely come true, Dennis...when the US shale oil industry is nationalized and the Federal government owns it, and funds it. 

Mike,

I have a range of scenarios for low medium and high oil prices, they cannot all be correct.

I do not know what the future will bring, obviously.  Regarding the oil industry, I would take a smart businessman like you with 5 decades of experience over my musings any day of the week. 

Thank you.

Dennis

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Ding Ray Chung said:

I understand. And what I am saying is: 1. operating wells will not be that cheap if prices are at ~$70, even if they are still under BK administration. If you are saying to buy them out for pennies now and wait for the $70 price, then you have to make a good case to Mr. Billionaire that they can be shut-in safely, in addition to making the case that oil price will be $70 and stable.  2. Leases could be negotiated, but they are a small part of the economics. 3. DUC may be the most attractive asset at some point, when it becomes clearer that oil prices are rebounding, but before Wall Str money has started moving back-in and driving the DUCs and other asset prices up.

That’s my opinion, but I am not a billionaire,either.

Mr Chung,

I am assuming the assets would be bought when oil prices were low in anticipation of higher future oil prices, buy low, bide your time waiting for oil prices to rise (and most agencies such s EIA and IEA expect that future oil prices will be much higher from 2025 to 2035) when oil prices reach the target you believe is "safe" bring wells back online, complete DUCs and drill new wells.

Perhaps no more tight oil will be produced, my expectation is that when oil prices are above $75/bo there will be profits to be made, consider this, a company goes bankrupt (chapter 7) and all their assets are sold off tomorrow, the price of the assets would be low and the price would be that which would allow someone to make a profit, otherwise the price would be zero or even negative (abandonment costs).  So I think there will be some money that could be made at the right price for the existing wells.

[Ding Ray Chung + 8]

Right, right, I understand. My take is, if I am a billionaire looking at Ch. 7 assets, I would only consider cheap DUCs. Operating wells will have to be shut-in, and this discussion thread has not answered clearly what this entails. Acreage is not that big of a deal... DUCs are probably somewhat interesting, given that substantial capital is already sunk-in, and now can be had at a huge discount.

10 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Mr Chung,

I am assuming the assets would be bought when oil prices were low in anticipation of higher future oil prices, buy low, bide your time waiting for oil prices to rise (and most agencies such s EIA and IEA expect that future oil prices will be much higher from 2025 to 2035) when oil prices reach the target you believe is "safe" bring wells back online, complete DUCs and drill new wells.

Perhaps no more tight oil will be produced, my expectation is that when oil prices are above $75/bo there will be profits to be made, consider this, a company goes bankrupt (chapter 7) and all their assets are sold off tomorrow, the price of the assets would be low and the price would be that which would allow someone to make a profit, otherwise the price would be zero or even negative (abandonment costs).  So I think there will be some money that could be made at the right price for the existing wells.

 

[D Coyne + 305]

2 hours ago, Ding Ray Chung said:

Right, right, I understand. My take is, if I am a billionaire looking at Ch. 7 assets, I would only consider cheap DUCs. Operating wells will have to be shut-in, and this discussion thread has not answered clearly what this entails. Acreage is not that big of a deal... DUCs are probably somewhat interesting, given that substantial capital is already sunk-in, and now can be had at a huge discount.

 

Yes potentially risky to buy a shut in well, but you would have the data on what the well has produced in the past, there is a lot of potential value, if the well can be brought back online and the price will be very cheap, in addition the most productive locations where new potential wells can be drilled are scarce, so those leases are potentially very valuable when oil prices rise.  The information I have read on this thread suggests that whether a well can be shut in will depend on the well.  So a billionaire hires a good senior petroleum engineer that has been laid off by a company involved in the area he is interested and that engineer may be able to estimate which wells can be safely shut in, those wells that the engineer thinks can be shut in safely and profitably produced at some target price (say $40/b) will be purchased if the purchase price allows an adequate ROI (perhaps 300 to 400% over the remaining life of the well), otherwise move on to the next set of wells, these would likely be a large set of wells that would be analyzed and sold as a package).  A lot of this might be done by oil majors.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Thanks Mike,

Interesting, my guess is that someone will find a way to make it work,but likely I am wrong. So your best guess scenario would be no future tight oil completions by anybody that is as smart as you about the oil business?  That is a shame, there's a pretty large resource which might be viable at higher oil prices.  

How you pulled those comments out of what @Mike Shellman wrote is beyond me.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Mike Shellman + 548]

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I was wondering when we might hear from you. Hope all is well with you and yours!

Thank you, sir. And you and yours I hope. 

[Brandon A. Lopez, MSEE + 2]

I have the answer to our problem. Please see 

 

[wrs + 893]

Here is the production report through Feb 2020 for one of the older producing Wolfcamp wells out in the Permian.  Not the oldest but it's one of the ones that first used slick water fracks with a lot of sand instead of a lot of gel.  The well had to be shut in for two longer periods twice in it's life.  The first time was the month of December 2015 after a gas plant explosion which had some kind of back pressure effect so they kept it shut in until that was fixed.  The second time was last summer when they were drilling and completing three new wells. Two were deeper and in different locations on the lease but one was a child well of this one.  Apparently the completion of the child well and the shutin period allowed this well to have triple the previous production.  This isn't the only well I have seen this happen with.  The oldest XTO well experienced the same kind of increase in output after completing a child well and a shut in period.  I don't know what the explanation would be but this is the data.  This well contradicts a lot of the typical claims made against shale.  The total production is about 400kbbl oil and 3Bcf of gas, so far.  This well other than lifting costs, taxes and royalty is FCF to it's operator.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by wrs

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. wrs

Great graphic and I thank you for sharing.

Although not directly related to the topic of this thread (great info throughout, IMHO), today's article from RBN Energy - arguably the very best oil/gas site on the internet - might provide to an interested reader an outstanding, professional-level understanding of what the future may hold for this industry, most precisely the gas boys with particular attention on the largest Appalachian Basin operators.

The fact that Antero's stock price has more than tripled this past month might spark an interest in what is going on ... with this grossly misconstrued "$300 billion in debt" stuff being especially in the crosshairs.

One would be short sighted, as so poignantly described by longtime Haliburton CEO David Lesar when he retired, to EVER underestimate the ingenuity, adaptability, the balls-to-the-wall toughness and resiliency of the people who make up - and always have made up - the hard working culture of the Oil and Gas industry.

[wrs + 893]

There is a class of people that have hated shale from the gitgo just because it was new and there are a class of people that hate it because they believe it took their job by killing the price of oil. Whatever the reason, that debt number is always tossed around and applied to the entire industry as a whole.  It's funny to me that on this very thread even at $70 an "expert" has said it's not worth investing in.  

The man that drilled the well that I posted up there is reputed to be a billionaire by some in the business (or so I was told).  I met him when he was definitely not a billionaire but rather he was a wildcatter with a lot of acreage leased back in 2009-11 for very, very low cost.  He mostly had 3 year leases with a 2 year option or 5 year leases.  He was able to sell some of his acreage to bigger producers in 2013 and begin to drill his own wells with the proceeds.  He had a few failures but was working with Cimarex when they found that changing the orientation of the wells from east / west to north/south and using slick water fracks produced great weills.

The well that I posted was the first one he drilled this way and it was our first with him.  Since he completed that well he has drilled and completed proably 100 other wells on acreage that he was able to retain and probably had around 30kbbl/day of production by this past January.  He is just as innovative and experienced in this business as the "expert" on this thread.  So I take what the "expert" on this thread says with a grain of salt because this guy has been in the oil business as long as the "expert" with the distinction being that this guy is really successful whereas the "expert" seems to be sucking on sour grapes where shale is concerned.  This guy was successful in conventional and shale so he is twice the "expert" IMO.

In any case this guy has his own services business, his own frack water business and a water disposal business.  He put all his wells on pipelines for product and water disposal by 2018.  He has done all he can to reduce his costs but he says he loses money below $35.  So I know he has been profitable for quite some time.  I know he did take on HAL as a silent working interest partner in most of his wells after ours.  He uses them for completion and I think for drilling crews.  They have innovated quite a lot over they years and tried things like longer laterals which they decided were not better producers nor did they save any money.  Most of what I know about shale has come from this "expert" and yet the "expert" on this site constantly derides my more optimistic view of shale.  

Edited April 27, 2020 by wrs

[D Coyne + 305]

22 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

How you pulled those comments out of what @Mike Shellman wrote is beyond me.

Earlier he said:

"I am not allowed the luxury of what if's, Dennis; I am required to deal with reality 24/7. "If" your scenario were to come true and all debt was wiped clean, say from the Midland Basin, and the price was guaranteed $70,  my advice to my client would be to stay out of the shale oil business. Get out, stay out and never come back.

No oil price can ever be guaranteed; it's a world oil market, not an American market. Even at $70 my client would still be dependent on credit and that does not work...if you've been paying attention, that should be clear. I'd ask him why in the hell he thinks he can borrow more capital going forward. Productivity is waning already in the Midland Basin and as producers move off onto flanks, economics will get worse. As that basin declines, GOR goes up,  gas is the metric to use, not oil; can your gas, Mr. Client, compete with APP Basin gas? No. Then there is water for frac use and water for disposal. It's a desert, sir and all that tremblin' is problematic. There is also American politics to deal with in the future, and liberal dumb asses that can't think past next week. There are a dozen other reasons I would say to my client to bury his money in the back yard with the dog bones. 

For Americans who can't stand the thought of not having shale oil in their lives, best prepare for nationalization. That's the ONLY way it works going forward. Good luck with that. "

He made a few other comments as well, but it all seems to suggest that Mr Shellman believes that a not much tight oil is likely to be produced profitably in the future, or that was my impression.

I would think there might be some oil price (perhaps $70/bo or more for WTI) where tight oil would be profitable to produce.  Mr Shellman seems to disagree strongly,  seems a shame that the resource might never be produced (maybe 50 to 70 Gb if mean USGS TRR estimates are correct and EIA AEO reference oil price estimates are also roughly correct).

I imagine at some point oil output will peak and oil prices are likely to rise when that occurs, assuming we eventually recover from the current economic crisis.  I expect peak oil will occur between 2025 and 2030 and figure WTI oil prices will be over $90/bo in 2020 US$ from peak to 10 years beyond peak(2027 to 2037 or so).

Mr Shellman doesn't like the idea of exporting US oil, I agree (if tight oil was cut back to about 5 Mb/d, the following scenario might be possible with prices following STEO and then ramping to meet AEO 2020 reference scenario by 2026.)  This would reduce US exports to close to zero and might allow more stable World oil prices.

Note that about 17.4 Gb of tight oil has been produced through December 2019 (by EIA tight oil estimates by play), the 76 Gb URR includes this 17.4 Gb of cumulative tight oil output, so remaining resources for this Scenario as of Dec 31, 2019 are about 58.6 Gb. A scenario with no tight oil completions after April 2020 would have a URR of about 27.5 Gb with about 10 Gb produced after Dec 31, 2019.  My expectation is that the very low scenario is unlikely, but if the price of oil remains less than $30/bo in 2020$ until 2050, it could happen (I am very skeptical such an oil price scenario would prove correct.)

There are an infinite number of possible future scenarios, the probability of any one being correct is zero.

Edited April 28, 2020 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

28 minutes ago, wrs said:

There is a class of people that have hated shale from the gitgo just because it was new and there are a class of people that hate it because they believe it took their job by killing the price of oil. Whatever the reason, that debt number is always tossed around and applied to the entire industry as a whole.  It's funny to me that on this very thread even at $70 an "expert" has said it's not worth investing in.  

The man that drilled the well that I posted up there is reputed to be a billionaire by some in the business (or so I was told).  I met him when he was definitely not a billionaire but rather he was a wildcatter with a lot of acreage leased back in 2009-11 for very, very low cost.  He mostly had 3 year leases with a 2 year option or 5 year leases.  He was able to sell some of his acreage to bigger producers in 2013 and begin to drill his own wells with the proceeds.  He had a few failures but was working with Cimarex when they found that changing the orientation of the wells from east / west to north/south and using slick water fracks produced great weills.

The well that I posted was the first one he drilled this way and it was our first with him.  Since he completed that well he has drilled and completed proably 100 other wells on acreage that he was able to retain and probably had around 30kbbl/day of production by this past January.  He is just as innovative and experienced in this business as the "expert" on this thread.  So I take what the "expert" on this thread says with a grain of salt because this guy has been in the oil business as long as the "expert" with the distinction being that this guy is really successful whereas the "expert" seems to be sucking on sour grapes where shale is concerned.  This guy was successful in conventional and shale so he is twice the "expert" IMO.

In any case this guy ha shis own services business, his own frack water business and a water disposal business.  He put all his wells on pipelines for product and water disposal by 2018.  He has done all he can to reduce his costs but he says he loses money below $35.  So I know he has been profitable for quite some time.  I know he did take on HAL as a silent working interest partner in most of his wells after ours.  He uses them for completion and I think for drilling crews.  They have innovated quite a lot over they years and tried things like longer laterals which they decided were not better producers nor did they save any money.  Most of what I know about shale has come from this "expert" and yet the "expert" on this site constantly derides my more optimistic view of shale.  

wrs,

Perhaps it is possible to do it right and make money as long as you only drill highly productive wells.  When one looks at the data for the Permian basin as a whole, the average 2018 well pays out at about $68/bo at wellhead at 36 months assuming $1/MCF for natural gas and NGL sales at 25% of WTI (in this case assumed to be $73/bo).  I believe Mr Shellman would estimate this differently, but I am accounting for oil, natural gas and NGL extracted from the natural gas stream in this analysis using data from shaleprofile and fitting an Arps hyperbolic to the data and assuming exponential decline when the annual decline rate reaches 12%. Cumulative output of oil is 240 kb at 36 months, NG is 798 MMCF at 36 months and NGL is 60.5 kb cumulative output at 36 months, these are gross barrels, the net barrels would be about 70% of this after royalties and severance taxes.

I can't imagine many are doing well at under $20/bo.

I have been told by an expert that the 36 month payout rule is what is aimed for for a successful (profitable) well by those in the industry.

Edited April 27, 2020 by D Coyne

[Cigar smoking oilman 0]

This is an absolute fraudulent posting....  where is Walter??  

[wrs + 893]

8 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

wrs,

I can't imagine many are doing well at under $20/bo.

 

No one is.  That is why I posted the $35 number for reference on what a well-run debt free operation needs.  Not everyone is stupid or a shill in the shale business.  

[D Coyne + 305]

51 minutes ago, wrs said:

No one is.  That is why I posted the $35 number for reference on what a well-run debt free operation needs.  Not everyone is stupid or a shill in the shale business.  

wrs,

For Permian basin see

https://shaleprofile.com/blog/permian-monthly-update/permian-update-through-january-2020/

well profile data for 2017 to 2019 average wells in chart below.

As long as the debt free operator can consistently drill above average wells they might be profitable at $35/bo, clearly basin wide it will be difficult for all operators to only drill and complete wells that are above average.  When you find a way to accomplish this just let us know.

Edited April 27, 2020 by D Coyne

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

Thank you, sir. And you and yours I hope. 

Hi Mike, also wishing you well in these troubling times. Hopefully u and yours have a great silly of N95 masks and the years worth of food everyone thinks we need. 

On the title of this OP, given that you've got loads of experience with stripper wells, what is the downside to shutting them in? Speculation runs both ways, some say the wells will perform better than before, others say the opposite and it has only been a topic of research in the past year looking at the papers. But I'm speculating that you've done this before on your wells. Would you be willing to share the Good the Bad and the Ugly of that? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

 

As long as the debt free operator can consistently drill above average wells they might be profitable at $35/bo, clearly basin wide it will be difficult for all operators to only drill and complete wells that are above average.  When you find a way to accomplish this just let us know.

 

I've got it! 

Everyone just needs to drill in the Lake Wobegon region. If all the kids there are above average, the wells must be too.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Ward Smith
Auto correct fail

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Cigar smoking oilman said:

This is an absolute fraudulent posting....  where is Walter??  

After the fact. I realized it is unclear what posting the Cigar smoker thinks is fraudulent, perhaps he or she can clarify?

See https://shaleprofile.com/blog/permian-monthly-update/permian-update-through-january-2020/

An expert has told me that the average full cycle cost of a Permian well in 2018 was about $10.5 million for an average well with a lateral length of about 9500 feet.

Well profile for average 2018 Permian tight oil well for oil, natural gas and NGL at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Auw1Neh2evklY-sQWUvAziDpd_eznViM/view?usp=sharing

or attached speadsheet

 

Permian 2018.xlsx

Edited April 27, 2020 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

4 hours ago, wrs said:

Here is the production report through Feb 2020 for one of the older producing Wolfcamp wells out in the Permian.  Not the oldest but it's one of the ones that first used slick water fracks with a lot of sand instead of a lot of gel.  The well had to be shut in for two longer periods twice in it's life.  The first time was the month of December 2015 after a gas plant explosion which had some kind of back pressure effect so they kept it shut in until that was fixed.  The second time was last summer when they were drilling and completing three new wells. Two were deeper and in different locations on the lease but one was a child well of this one.  Apparently the completion of the child well and the shutin period allowed this well to have triple the previous production.  This isn't the only well I have seen this happen with.  The oldest XTO well experienced the same kind of increase in output after completing a child well and a shut in period.  I don't know what the explanation would be but this is the data.  This well contradicts a lot of the typical claims made against shale.  The total production is about 400kbbl oil and 3Bcf of gas, so far.  This well other than lifting costs, taxes and royalty is FCF to it's operator.

 

 

wrs,

Interesting chart. Note that after 6 months output fell back to rate of one month before shut down for fracking the child well in September 2019, so the bump in output is short lived, this is perhaps the so called "halo effect".  Thanks.

Great well, the average 2018 Permian well would have about 294 kb of oil output and 1.1 BCF of natural gas of cumulative output at 66 months.  The Average 2014 well has cumulative output at 66 months of about 151 kbo and about 595 million CF of cumulative gas.  So your well was probably a top 3% well of all Permian horizontal wells completed in 2014, not a typical well.

Do you have an idea of full cycle costs for that well (land, pad cost, storage tanks, gathering lines, abandonment cost as well ad D+C)?

Edited April 27, 2020 by D Coyne

[Mike Shellman + 548]

@Dennis Coyne you asked me for an opinion and I gave you one. Don't now chide me for it because you don't agree with it and stop putting damn words in my mouth. I have never referred to myself as an "expert" on anything. Now, once again, I am forced to endure more dung heap from the Wolfcamp Ferrari owner, the recipient of millions in free royalty money and all the unlimited oil knowledge that goes with that. I suddenly feel like I need to be wire brushed, head to toe. 

If you children of shale believe in it so much, put your money where your mouth is: don't go buy a few shares in Pioneer, or FANG...that's for girls. Get you some working interest in a $10MM well and wait 4 years to get your money back, if ever. Pay an AFE, pay cost overruns, draw down on your personal checking account to facilitate a side track, pay your share of fishing a $250K ESP...loose some sleep over it; get an ulcer. You'll change your mind about all the stupid, self serving dribble you read on the internet, trust me. 

Shale oil is a financial disaster funded by socialized capital, now asking for socialized bailouts. All royalty owners believe in because its free money to them. If it was a healthy sector of my industry it could withstand whatever OPEC, or Russia, or a little bug that looks like a dog toy, threw at it. It can't. That's exactly why its now whining for help, for a bailout, for negative interest rates, more sanctions, tariffs, the right to flare at will. Its desperate. In the way you have all observed it in the past, its a goner. 

Cimerex, by the way, has $2B of long term debt and a debt to equity ratio of 0.73, which is horrible. It once traded at $146 a share and is now down to $22. While shareholder equity was being destroyed indeed its leader was making lots of bucks: https://www1.salary.com/Thomas-E-Jorden-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-CIMAREX-ENERGY-CO.html  His parachute is very Whitting like. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Mike Shellman

[Zardoz + 5]

OK first post.. I like you guys...  This has been a deal from the first of time in tite reservoirs were ever completed... about choke management 50 years ago.  The reason is if you drawdown near wellbore below bubble point prematurely you can induce 3 phase flow thus reducing relative perm to oil...man I can go for days on this as it becomes an economics vs ultimate recovery bitchfest..

 

Rate vs time argument has been going going on longer than beans in chilli.

 

For waterflooding you always want to drop just below bubble point prior to injection..for waterdrive it don't maatter if you can handle the water cheaply. 

 

BL no in general shutting in a good well will no matter..a magiginal well yes...old saying is you can't fk up a good well..drilling and completing 1000'a of wells and opertaing them I can attest to that.

 

I can preach it round or flat but you need to learn what works in your area.

[Mike Shellman + 548]

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Hi Mike, also wishing you well in these troubling times. Hopefully u and yours have a great silly of N95 masks and the years worth of food everyone thinks we need. 

 

Thank you,  Mr. Ward. I wish you well also. Every shale oil operator in America will someday very soon become a stripper well operator, even Exxon. Particularly Exxon. 80% of Eagle Ford shale oil wells now make <40 BOPD and are at their economic limits, being shut in. They may never see 15 BOPD stripper definitions before they are abandoned. If one wishes to know if a well, field, play or trend works economically, ask a stripper well operator. Every dollar counts particularly when it's your dollar and we're all very good at efficiency and truthful economics. 

I would need to understand the nature of the reservoir, is it clastic, or carbonate, what is its' permeability, it's porosity, what its drive mechanism is, is there still an effective oil column in the well or is that oil disbursed in, for instance, connate water, is there cement integrity behind pipe, GOR, etc. Most of the time conventional clastic sandstone wells will be fine after periods of shut in. They may need egging along at first, and some extended period of dewatering before OWR comes back, but they'll be fine. If you have some, keep them. They will very much be worth having some day very soon. There is a good answer to your question elsewhere here. 

Stay safe out there.