Shale Oil will it self destruct?

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

Let's all try to get along. Everyone has opinions on Fracking, and oil in general. No reason for getting panties bunched up. Most in here have valid points, some have crappy graphs "guessing" on doomsday end of oil, etc. Just try playing nice.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

You haven't a clue what my "league" of operations entails. Over 50 years I've drilled HZ wells, done large frac's, deep, shallow, and drill new wells every year; there is nothing about the money that I make that is 'free,' nor requires 'further investment.'  That's stupid.

As was your buddy's comments; they are idiots. They don't risk their own money, they use other people's money and almost all of them are deeply in debt, can't keep their credit cards in their purse and are set to drive the price down, again, into the 40's with fiscally irresponsible over production.

I am stunned how dumb people are about cheerleading for this stinking shale stuff; none, I repeat none, of the hoopla said about it can be substantiated with facts. 99% of those guys are still, after a decade, losing money hand over fist. Some of you cheerleaders seem to thing the shale industry can lie to the Securities and Exchange Commission like they lie to investors. Realized production data filed with regulatory agencies clearly, clearly shows that <10% of shale oil wells currently being drilled pay out D,C & L costs in less than 3 years. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Shale-Investors-Fear-Bloodbath-As-Earnings-Season-Kicks-Off.html

Dissolvable frac balls were used in vertical stage frac'ing 50 years ago in Luling Field and Pine Island Field in north LA. Like dissolvable frac plugs, sliding sleeves and other tinker toys, none of that stuff has helped the American shale industry become more profitable.  

https://www.oilystuffblog.com/single-post/2019/07/15/Cartoon-Of-the-Week

Mike, I like you and don't want to fight. You've characterized yourself as having stripper wells right here on this blog, that's what I was referring to. I admire and respect the stripper well operators who aren't so bogged down with debt and poor practices that bury many a larger firm. Like a lot of things, they're likely to still be making money when the big dogs are just bone. 

To be clear, by my math 50 years ago was 1969 and I don't recall any dissolving frac balls, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. I do believe they had plugs you milled out with a bit. Not easy and not fast. 

Same with horizontal drilling, but using a kick off and the tech of the day couldn't possibly keep you in the narrow payzone that mud motors on the end of coiled tubing buys you today. I still remember how bad the tech was in the early 80's for determining the inclination of a well bore. I don't believe it was any Better in the 60's, do you? 

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I potentially have some tech to improve the performance of these wells, which is why I was talking to the chef scientist. I don't believe the problem is with fracking, prices are low because DEMAND is low. Our vehicles get better mileage and we're simply driving less, as a nation. Some countries might have high demand, but they have no money so it doesn't matter. Europe has such high taxes on fuel that demand is crushed by pricing. I've been in countries where the fuel cost $9 per gallon, which certainly puts a damper on driving, just like their masters want. It's a complex problem. 

As for profitability, cash flow isn't the only (or even the optimum) metric to evaluate fiscal performance. Debt is called leverage for a reason, and if they're giving money away cheap, why not leverage? These wells should be evaluated one at a time, averages skew the data. It's straightforward to say on This well the costs were X, the production was Y and the return was Z. Trying to find that out times 2000 wells, in massively different stages of drilling, completion and production is a lost cause. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

This idiot has called me asshole, a communist and today, ignorant.

Just for the Record:

1.   You are assuredly not an asshole.  If I want to find assholes, I head over to Wall Street.  Lots around over there. 

2.    You are most definitely not a communist.  I would be hard pressed to come up with a more Capitalist guy. 

3.    You are assuredly not "ignorant."   You know whereof you speak. 

------I read your posts with great care.  Personally, I find I learn quite a bit from them.  Cheers.

[Mike Shellman + 548]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

-----I read your posts with great care

Thank you. I do not respond to questions or comment here trying to pick fights. I live and breathe oil and natural gas economics and finances every day; I am trying to help. The shale oil phenomena is no threat to me personally, nor am I ignorant because at this point in my long career choose to be completely out of debt and wish to stay mentally and physically busy operating and drilling new "stripper" wells. 

Shale oil is important; nobody wants it "go away," whatever that means. Lots of people in America, however, believe for it to be sustainable and something our kids can count on, it needs to become profitable, get and stay out of debt. Shale oil is basically all we have left in N. America; we need to take care of it, nurture the nasty stuff, not piss it all off to make a quick buck. 

Reserve estimates and predicting remaining oil reserves in America, by the way, is as old as the industry itself. Its vitally important, right, wrong, "crappy, or not. The end of the oil era is upon us and being ready for that end is far better than just assuming its BAU. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Mike Shellman

[wrs + 893]

Well I know that my independent operator is investing $40m on the Culberson section right now.  He is drilling four wells from two pads with a single rig.  Two wells per pad and they have drilled the first leg of the first well and skidded the rig and are drilling the first leg of the second well.  They will then drill and complete the laterals and begin production before moving on to the second pad I believe.  They have completed the production facilities for the first two wells so that they can begin production as soon as they are done on that pad.

The Permian has multiple horizons in the Wolfcamp as well as the Bone Springs.  I suspect that the Bone Springs in Texas anyway is on hold for higher prices but the Wolfcamp is nowhere near tapped out.  

XTO spent the last four months drilling four more wells on the Orla section in the Wolfcamp, they just sent us the division orders so they must be planning for production soon but there are no completion reports available yet.  It looks like both my operators are going full steam ahead with more Wolfcamp A production.  XTO has shut in the two Bone Springs wells they drilled which were not very good producers.  They filed a bunch of updates to the completion reports just today.  Production for May was 68kbbl, about the same as for April.

I guess they all have enough margin in their profit levels that they feel this amount of new production is justified even if prices drop some from here.  As far as I am concerned, I give money to my kids from these earnings and so they are getting the benefit of it in their lifetimes.  If shale poops out and our oil isn't produced, my kids end up losing.  I can see the argument for producing it before oil is no longer the main fuel for the economy but that is assuming that renewables will come on and work sooner than later.  I am not sure I believe that myself.

Edited July 16, 2019 by wrs

[Tomasz + 1,608]

5 years of massive oil underinvestment - look on global oil rig count in last decade even OPEC low cost producers

Shale which need to drill more and more every year just to mantain oil production

New rules in shipping - some unusual additional demand growth in 2020 

Shale needs 70 $ WTI and will get it. We will see shale peak production in about 5 years and shale growth rate slowing considerably from 2019.

What can go wrong with oil prices.

So I see 80 $ Brent oil in the future because its fair price of oil - balancing supply and not causing demand destruction

And never NEVER forget about $  exchange rate = $ index is up 28 % comparing to 5 years ago. Its advantage of some oil exporting countries but not shale frackers.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Tomasz

[Falcon + 222]

9 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

I have. Its performance in the Bakken is abysmal. It has worldwide operations including a portion of new discoveries in Guyana and has been dumping assets elsewhere. Perhaps that is what is confusing to you. Hess is actually No.1 on the negative cash flow hit parade.

 

 

You've read their 10K ? Better read it again.  From 15% to 55% their Bakken properties.  

The 10K SEC Filing is a legal document.  If you lie in their you will get shareholder lawsuits up the Ying yang.

Guyana is a long ways from Bakken.  It's another country .  

[DanilKa + 443]

9 hours ago, wrs said:

Mike's posts just ooze jealousy and envy.  The guy that drills my section in Culberson county is an independent who has been in the oil business for 40 years.  He is a billionaire due to his success in drilling PROFITABLE shale wells but since Mike can't understand how it's done, he doesn't believe it's possible.  That is called arrogance but mostly it's ignorance.

This guy also drilled a lot of shallow wells out in the Permian over the years but he did figure out shale and was able to make it work without going broke. Admittedly it's not easy being independent but he has done it, primarily because he is vertically integrated but he is making money.  So when Mike makes blanket statements regarding the absolute stupidity of shale operators, understand it's because he doesn't understand.

he also fights with a bare knuckles. Just saying.

[wrs + 893]

3 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

he also fights with a bare knuckles. Just saying.

Well, this other guy usually carries three or four pistols in his truck.  I don't know if he fights or not but he is a real Texas oil man. As for me, I haven't been in a fight since I was 19.

[Mike Shellman + 548]

39 minutes ago, Falcon said:

 From 15% to 55% their Bakken properties.  

Yeah, they're kicking ass alrighty.

Quick ! (and no researching on the internet before you answer), lets say you want to learn something about the well you've just written a check for, which end of the rig do you go to find out...to the right or to the left. No cheating now...

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

11 hours ago, wrs said:

Ignorance is a state of not knowing, it's not a name, it's an adjective.  Your blanket claims are ignorant.  Obviously you recognized your error and made a caveat in your previous post so I must have struck a nerve but now who is calling names?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant

ignorant

 adjective

ig·no·rant | \ ˈig-n(ə-)rənt  \

Definition of ignorant

 

1a: destitute of knowledge or educationan ignorant societyalso : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specifiedparents ignorant of modern mathematics

b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligenceignorant errors

2: UNAWARE, UNINFORMED

Perhaps you should look up 'arrogant' as well...

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

15 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

Thank you. I do not respond to questions or comment here trying to pick fights. I live and breathe oil and natural gas economics and finances every day; I am trying to help. The shale oil phenomena is no threat to me personally, nor am I ignorant because at this point in my long career choose to be completely out of debt and wish to stay mentally and physically busy operating and drilling new "stripper" wells. 

Shale oil is important; nobody wants it "go away," whatever that means. Lots of people in America, however, believe for it to be sustainable and something our kids can count on, it needs to become profitable, get and stay out of debt. Shale oil is basically all we have left in N. America; we need to take care of it, nurture the nasty stuff, not piss it all off to make a quick buck. 

Reserve estimates and predicting remaining oil reserves in America, by the way, is as old as the industry itself. Its vitally important, right, wrong, "crappy, or not. The end of the oil era is upon us and being ready for that end is far better than just assuming its BAU. 

Mike, 

I too, read your posts with great interest. And you are probably right in most of your observations. However, coming from offshore I see a structural change happening in the oil market driven in part by shale. I think the structural loser will be offshore much more than shale. 

I agree that many things should be done differently (well to the benefit of the shale oil industry and the US), but to me that is a different discussion. I think the key point is - as you stated - is the the oil era is in its sunset; granted it is a long sunset, but still. In that context I can understand the investor attraction to short cycle barrels. 

[JR EWING + 123]

21 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Mike, 

I too, read your posts with great interest. And you are probably right in most of your observations. However, coming from offshore I see a structural change happening in the oil market driven in part by shale. I think the structural loser will be offshore much more than shale. 

I agree that many things should be done differently (well to the benefit of the shale oil industry and the US), but to me that is a different discussion. I think the key point is - as you stated - is the the oil era is in its sunset; granted it is a long sunset, but still. In that context I can understand the investor attraction to short cycle barrels. 

short cycle is in favor because big oil is out of favor and its also been politicized to the hilt with help of bankers and investment houses. the whole sector is out of favor with investors, only because there is no clarity on oil price trend. WTI at 555 is no good to shale which trades at a discount to that of 5 dollars, and the more of it that is pulled out the bigger the discount will be because there is a limited demand for 48api oil. Is oil in its sunset, well it must be because we have been using it in mass it for well over 100 years now and its running out. There is between 40 and 50 years of oil left at todays rate of use. that pretty much confirms that twilight is about correct. The question is with 2 billion vehicles in circulation private and commercial, 3 million electric cars in circulation after 10 years of hype, battery materials that will be long gone before oil if there is a big penetration into ICE market,to me its all bollox oils gonna be gone before we blink. 

 

[Mike Shellman + 548]

11 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think the structural loser will be offshore much more than shale. 

Thank you. I agree with you 100% regarding the offshore industry. The American shale oil phenomena, in its current feeding frenzy, is temporary. Money is being poured into it hand over fist, regardless of profitability, but eventually Mother Nature will have Her say, as she always does, and  productivity will go way down, become way more expensive to extract and even less profitable. I think that will begin to occur, and D. Coyne suggests, by 2025 or so.

The short investment cycle nature of shale oil has fundamentally changed the world oil order and investment in exploration, offshore and on, around the world has been severely set back. I believe the US shale phenomena is the root cause of that. As iron rusts away, and qualified personal leave the worldwide industry because of job instability and retirement, that will have bad, long term ramifications. When US shale oil fizzles out the world is going to be woefully unprepared and prices will spike, likely, causing bad economic problems. 

"New" folks to the industry (mostly thru the internet) are fixated on American shale.  In the US shale oil only represents 53% of our total C+C production; it declines at the rate of 36+% every year and 75% of the wells now being drilled  are needed simply to replace annualized decline rates from the year before.* Conventional production, including from the GOM, has annual decline rates of about 3.2%. Elsewhere throughout the world there have been few new discoveries, production is declining, reserves are not being replaced, and the world, to which America is part of, is headed for problems.

For all the good the shale oil phenomena has done America, short term,  it is proving problematic for the rest of the world. Its gross mismanagement will prove to be a problem, in the long run, for the United States also. Stupid nationalistic pride has lent itself to the belief that America can become hydrocarbon independent, and stay that way, and that we no longer need OPEC, or Russian oil, that we can isolate ourselves from the world.* That is very dumb stuff...before it's all over the largest consuming nation in the world is going to need every drop of oil the world has to offer. 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 7/16/2019 at 6:30 AM, Falcon said:

OK, Whatever . . . . 

Statistics and white lies .

ALL I KNOW IS  .  .  .  .  .  .

2.47 MILLION BARRELS A DAY OF PERMIAN TO EXPORT TERMINALS  PIPELINE CAPACITY COMING ONLINE NEXT 9 MONTHS. 

OIL PRICES GOING DOWN.

That's what traders need to know.

Facts don't matter to some.

Do you also want the government to make Amazon stop selling products so cheap so all retail can retail can survive.  How dare Amazon use technology to their advantage.  And free shipping to boot ! How dare they !  

You can save the oil industry and the world. Good luck.

 

Falcon,

Your comment perhaps is responding to some other comment.  

You said the EIA is conservative in their estimates.  I have shown that their estimate for tight oil output is in fact larger than the TRR estimate for tight oil by the USGS (whose estimates may indeed be conservative, usually they are pretty god based on available information when the assessment was performed).  A "realistic" (aka conservative) estimate take economics into account along with geophysics (I have degrees in both physics and economics) to find the economically recoverable resources (ERR) rather than the very optimistic TRR estimate.

The chart below compares a "realistic" ERR estimate based on the mean USGS TRR estimate and assuming the EIA's AEO 2018 reference oil price estimate is correct, with the EIA's AEO 2019 tight oil estimate for their reference scenario (their best guess).

The "realistic" scenario is labelled US LTO.

No idea what the government interference nonsense is about, just pointing out where a free market is likely to lead.

Also note that if oil prices decrease as you seem to believe we would see lower US tight oil output, the second chart compares a low oil price scenario with a higher AEO 2018 reference oil price scenario (prices on right axis), the tight oil output for the two scenarios is the same through 2023.

Note that the first chart below gives cumulative production from 2017 to 2050 and the second includes cumulative output from 2000 to 2050, when the 9 Gb of tight oil produced from 2000 to 2017 is added to the cumulative totals in the first chart we get 84 Gb for the US LTO scenario and 123 Gb for the AEO LTO scenario.  Those numbers can be compared to the URR given on the second chart (83 Gb for the higher oil price scenario, same as used for the US LTO in first chart below and 51 Gb for the low price scenario.)

Edited July 17, 2019 by D Coyne

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

10 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

. The American shale oil phenomena, in its current feeding frenzy, is temporary. Money is being poured into it hand over fist, regardless of profitability, but eventually Mother Nature will have Her say, as she always does, and  productivity will go way down, become way more expensive to extract and even less profitable.

This is where I disagree a little. Again, coming from offshore shale seems to me as having potential of driving down costs through standardisation and building systemic knowledge, much more than offshore. I don't believe in this innovation hype, but I believe in the slow and steady grind driving down production costs, with a caveat for geological challenges.

 

15 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

For all the good the shale oil phenomena has done America, short term,  it is proving problematic for the rest of the world. Its gross mismanagement will prove to be a problem, in the long run, for the United States also. Stupid nationalistic pride has lent itself to the belief that America can become hydrocarbon independent, and stay that way, and that we no longer need OPEC, or Russian oil, that we can isolate ourselves from the world.* That is very dumb stuff...before it's all over the largest consuming nation in the world is going to need every drop of oil the world has to offer. 

Whilst I don't really disagree I would like to offer you this perspective - maybe the foundation for new export success is being laid? There are shale deposit in other parts of the world too. If American companies build up enough knowledge and equipment and oilprice rises sufficiently this can be exported. Just a thought. 

[wrs + 893]

15 hours ago, Tomasz said:

And never NEVER forget about $  exchange rate = $ index is up 28 % comparing to 5 years ago. Its advantage of some oil exporting countries but not shale frackers.

That's an important point often overlooked.  The dollar has been pretty strong because the other countries caught on and started QE which was producing weakness in the dollar.  It may well be that with Trump whining about interest rates being too high and the dollar too strong he figures out that he can't have all three, low interest rates, competitive dollar and cheap oil.  The dollar started rising when oil started falling back in 2014 from nearly 80 to 97 right now.

[D Coyne + 305]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is where I disagree a little. Again, coming from offshore shale seems to me as having potential of driving down costs through standardisation and building systemic knowledge, much more than offshore. I don't believe in this innovation hype, but I believe in the slow and steady grind driving down production costs, with a caveat for geological challenges.

 

Whilst I don't really disagree I would like to offer you this perspective - maybe the foundation for new export success is being laid? There are shale deposit in other parts of the world too. If American companies build up enough knowledge and equipment and oilprice rises sufficiently this can be exported. Just a thought. 

Rasmus,

Eventually the slow steady operational improvements get overcome by geology, just like every land oil play in the World, the most productive areas are developed first and as these core areas become fully developed the producers move to "tier 2" areas that are less productive while costs are unchanged (or decrease more slowly than the reduction in output).  

One way to convince yourself that this is the case is to look at 10Ks, for the most part, the tight oil focused companies are not doing well (EOG is a notable exception to this general rule).

As to tight oil expanding in the rest of the World, this seems doubtful.  The structure of the oil industry is very different in the US compared to most other nations and it is not likely that there will be extensive development of tight oil resources Worldwide unless we see sustained oil prices at $100+.  That seems a possibility once World oil output peaks in 2025 or so, but by 2035 high oil prices may have lead to a transition away from oil to the point that oi prices start to fall due to lack of demand for oil.  At that point any international development of tight oil resources will become unprofitable and is likely to cease.

[D Coyne + 305]

35 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

Thank you. I agree with you 100% regarding the offshore industry. The American shale oil phenomena, in its current feeding frenzy, is temporary. Money is being poured into it hand over fist, regardless of profitability, but eventually Mother Nature will have Her say, as she always does, and  productivity will go way down, become way more expensive to extract and even less profitable. I think that will begin to occur, and D. Coyne suggests, by 2025 or so.

The short investment cycle nature of shale oil has fundamentally changed the world oil order and investment in exploration, offshore and on, around the world has been severely set back. I believe the US shale phenomena is the root cause of that. As iron rusts away, and qualified personal leave the worldwide industry because of job instability and retirement, that will have bad, long term ramifications. When US shale oil fizzles out the world is going to be woefully unprepared and prices will spike, likely, causing bad economic problems. 

"New" folks to the industry (mostly thru the internet) are fixated on American shale.  In the US shale oil only represents 53% of our total C+C production; it declines at the rate of 36+% every year and 75% of the wells now being drilled  are needed simply to replace annualized decline rates from the year before.* Conventional production, including from the GOM, has annual decline rates of about 3.2%. Elsewhere throughout the world there have been few new discoveries, production is declining, reserves are not being replaced, and the world, to which America is part of, is headed for problems.

For all the good the shale oil phenomena has done America, short term,  it is proving problematic for the rest of the world. Its gross mismanagement will prove to be a problem, in the long run, for the United States also. Stupid nationalistic pride has lent itself to the belief that America can become hydrocarbon independent, and stay that way, and that we no longer need OPEC, or Russian oil, that we can isolate ourselves from the world.* That is very dumb stuff...before it's all over the largest consuming nation in the world is going to need every drop of oil the world has to offer. 

Agree with you Mike except that tight oil is more than 53% of C+C output at  least in April 2019 (you might have used annual output) tight oil output was 7462 kb/d and US C+C was 12162 kb/d so that would give us 61.3% of US C+C output from tight oil, so it is a pretty big deal, but will peak in 2022 to 2025 (depending on the price of oil) and decline pretty rapidly.

This is where we are somewhat on the same page.  The low oil prices that most oil pros believe are likely in the future (or that's my impression from reading comments here) will lead to about 50 Gb for the ERR of tight oil (assuming a $70/bo maximum Brent oil price in 2017$ is maintained for many years out to 2050).  Lower oil prices (less than $70/bo) would lead to a lower ERR, though I have not tried that model.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 7/16/2019 at 7:49 PM, DanilKa said:

I can confirm, water fracs were practiced in 60th by Dowell. 7-8M lb fracs were done in vertical wells in 80th. Not much of a revolutionary new tech in shales; as a matter of fact it’s hardly possible to sell NT to shale operators. Mostly copying what’s popular. 

Still, incremental improvements do  change things and credit should be given for that. 

On economics, come across George Carlin video: “they don’t have negative cash flow problem - they are f..ng broke!” https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY

George Carlin was hilarious! I miss his humor.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

33 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Eventually the slow steady operational improvements get overcome by geology, just like every land oil play in the World, the most productive areas are developed first and as these core areas become fully developed the producers move to "tier 2" areas that are less productive while costs are unchanged (or decrease more slowly than the reduction in output).  

Agree.

But I think bottlenecks have also driven costs high. This will change. 10 years is really not a lot to build out a supplychain. 

This will delay geology overtaking operational improvements. 

33 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

The structure of the oil industry is very different in the US compared to most other nations 

I know.

But the majors are multinational. They have done projects all over the world. They just lack systemic knowledge about shale. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[D Coyne + 305]

On 7/16/2019 at 8:56 AM, wrs said:

Mike's posts just ooze jealousy and envy.  The guy that drills my section in Culberson county is an independent who has been in the oil business for 40 years.  He is a billionaire due to his success in drilling PROFITABLE shale wells but since Mike can't understand how it's done, he doesn't believe it's possible.  That is called arrogance but mostly it's ignorance.

This guy also drilled a lot of shallow wells out in the Permian over the years but he did figure out shale and was able to make it work without going broke. Admittedly it's not easy being independent but he has done it, primarily because he is vertically integrated but he is making money.  So when Mike makes blanket statements regarding the absolute stupidity of shale operators, understand it's because he doesn't understand.

Mike's posts ooze knowledge mostly. 

Your anecdotes would be interesting without the insults.  

Mike is looking at the big picture.  Just because 1 out of every 10 wells drilled is profitable (your wells seem to be pretty good, though it is not clear if you are pointing to your best wells only, the way an investor presentation would.

The industry average is what is important, these can be found at shaleprofile.com.  What the actual data indicates is that for the average tight oil well in the Permian basin that was drilled in 2017, about $65/bo is needed at the refinery gate ($61/b at wellhead) to breakeven.  That is just the reality.  The average EUR of a Permian basin well completed in 2017 will be about 370 kb at a breakeven price of $61/bo at the wellhead ($65/bo WTI).

[D Coyne + 305]

14 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

Yeah, they're kicking ass alrighty.

Quick ! (and no researching on the internet before you answer), lets say you want to learn something about the well you've just written a check for, which end of the rig do you go to find out...to the right or to the left. No cheating now...

I wonder if the "improved" returns had anything to do with changes in the tax laws.  When we look at the Bakken as a whole, output has been pretty flat for the past 7 months or so, lower oil prices is likely to lead to lower output in the Bakken and perhaps flat output in the Permian basin or perhaps a slight increase in the Permian Basin, but at a lower rate (300 kb/d annual increase rather than 1000 kb/d), depends on oil price and how much it goes up or down.

[Outlaw Jackie + 78]

There are some really strong opinions on this subject, but being in a shale gas basin, I will let you decide if there are any parallels.  We've been doing this here since about 2007, and "Permania" did not really take off until 2014. 

Most of the stocks of the large operators here have lost 85-90% of their value since 2007.  Antero, Range and Southwest Energy are all setting new 52-week lows as we speak (7/17/2019).  Steve Schlotterbeck, the former CEO of EQT said “The shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster for the buy/hold investor,” 

Racing to increase production in an already over-supplied market is a bad idea, period.  Selling at steep discount to Brent is not a viable long-term business model. 

Name-calling and personal attacks are much of the reason I avoid this platform, and the admin should sanction those who are guilty. I find it petty, and adds nothing to what could be interesting dialogue. 

My name is Paul Jackson, and I'm in the book, as is Mike Shellman.  We have nothing to hide. 

 

[Mike Shellman + 548]

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

Agree with you Mike except that tight oil is more than 53% of C+C output at  least in April 2019

Thanks, Dennis. Berman's opinion as to LTO as a percentage of total.