Shale Oil Fiasco

[James Gautreau + 86]

The Permian provides the comparison between traditional wells and shale wells. At the start of 2010, IHS Markit noted that production for the Permian Basin was approximately 880,000 bpd, with virtually all production coming from conventional operations. By the end of 2010, that group of wells produced 767,000 bpd—a decline of 110,000 bpd, or 13% of production.

Fast forward to 2019 when most wells drilled in the Permian Basin were shale wells (hydraulically fractured), which decline much faster, and the situation became even more dramatic. In 2019 Permian Basin production started the year at 3.8 MMbpd, a million bpd higher than the year before. IHS Markit expects that base production will decline by approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil per day by the end of 2019–a staggering 40% base decline rate.

“Unless intentionally choked back, new, individual unconventional wells decline very rapidly, often 65% to 85% in the first year, so companies with many young wells in their inventory see significant declines in production compared to companies with a balance of younger and older wells,” LeBlanc said. “However, these high initial decline rates of individual shale wells become shallower over time, with older wells showing annual declines of 20% or less. So, the key here is that older wells in an operator’s inventory help offset the rapid declines of newer wells.”

Because of these older wells, base declines can also decelerate if the weighted average age of the wells in the production base rises. Just as a production base with mostly young wells exhibits high decline rates, the older the production base, the more stable it is, IHS Markit said.

Companies with the highest growth in recent years have the steepest base decline rates, and vice versa. The challenge of base declines is, therefore, different for each operator, depending on multiple factors, but especially on the decisions the firm has made concerning production growth and capital allocation, IHS Markit said.

“Now that capital markets have closed for many companies and investors are requiring returns, a critical objective for these companies is to slow production growth, significantly moderating their base declines,” LeBlanc said.  

The enhanced Permian Basin reserves-decline analysis is derived from the IHS Markit Automated Well Forecasting Technology, and is currently delivered to customers through its Performance Evaluator™ analytics platform.

[James Gautreau + 86]

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, James Gautreau said:

My bad. The Bakken is spitting out 101 barrels a day per well.

Looks like you've been working overtime.  

Why not take a break.  

Conoco refracing Bakken early vintage wells and lifting oil at a cost under $30 barrel.

You loose.

Really take a break . You must be getting writers cramp.

IHS a shill for Big Oil.  Shale slowing down.  Transition year.  

Happy Holidays and a Productive New Year

LOL

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

It's gotten bigger, $80 billion bigger, in spite of the tariffs. Everything he says is wrong, everything he does is wrong.

Not quite.  There are two reasons the dollar amount gets larger.  First, the tariffs themselves will inflate the numbers imbalance - the tariffs get added on to the value of the imported goods.   Second, the Chinese have cut off imports of oil and grains and pigs and even lobsters from the USA  (and also from Canada, in selected areas).  They do that not because they don't need the goods, they do that as a calculated form of political warfare.  It is not "100% tariff," it is  "Zero import quota."  Do they hurt their internal standard of living by refusing to import canola?  Of course they do.  The Communist Party will do it anyway, leaving their people without cooking oil (and thus forcing scarcity and use of other, lesser substitutes) just to try to inflict some political pain on US farmers whom they perceive as being core Trump voters.   A bit silly, but hey, it is the Communist approach. 

Trump is an interesting figure  (and, obviously, quite polarizing).  He is not a detail man, refuses to read background analyses, goes with his hunch.  That has the potential of becoming a mess, and it does in certain areas such as NATO.  Yet he seems to have put his pulse finger on the trade matters with China and he understands intuitively that US factories and workers take it on the chin as a result of elitist attitudes of waves of Democrat politicians who have utterly abandoned the US factory worker  (never mind their union credentials).  What Trump is really doing is saying to the limousine-riding elitists:  No More.   I am shutting down your obsession with China, and you want something, you buy American. 

Now ask yourself:  why is that such a lousy idea?   And it is not.  And there are lots of areas where you can criticize, but this is not one of them.  Trump is disengaging, and it is a tectonic shift in world affairs. 

[Jabbar + 465]

43 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

James Gautreau

Do you still work for Baker Hughs/GE in Houston or are you another casualty of the Shale Revolution with an intense visceral hatred for anything related to shale bent on revenge for losing your job ? ? ?

Now a card carrying "Never Shaler"

Where are you working now ?  In Houston ?

 

 

[James Gautreau + 86]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not quite.  There are two reasons the dollar amount gets larger.  First, the tariffs themselves will inflate the numbers imbalance - the tariffs get added on to the value of the imported goods.   Second, the Chinese have cut off imports of oil and grains and pigs and even lobsters from the USA  (and also from Canada, in selected areas).  They do that not because they don't need the goods, they do that as a calculated form of political warfare.  It is not "100% tariff," it is  "Zero import quota."  Do they hurt their internal standard of living by refusing to import canola?  Of course they do.  The Communist Party will do it anyway, leaving their people without cooking oil (and thus forcing scarcity and use of other, lesser substitutes) just to try to inflict some political pain on US farmers whom they perceive as being core Trump voters.   A bit silly, but hey, it is the Communist approach. 

Trump is an interesting figure  (and, obviously, quite polarizing).  He is not a detail man, refuses to read background analyses, goes with his hunch.  That has the potential of becoming a mess, and it does in certain areas such as NATO.  Yet he seems to have put his pulse finger on the trade matters with China and he understands intuitively that US factories and workers take it on the chin as a result of elitist attitudes of waves of Democrat politicians who have utterly abandoned the US factory worker  (never mind their union credentials).  What Trump is really doing is saying to the limousine-riding elitists:  No More.   I am shutting down your obsession with China, and you want something, you buy American. 

Now ask yourself:  why is that such a lousy idea?   And it is not.  And there are lots of areas where you can criticize, but this is not one of them.  Trump is disengaging, and it is a tectonic shift in world affairs. 

Do you remember that minor event back in the 1930's called the Great Depression? It was started by tariffs, and escalation, and finally world trade shutdown. The stock market crash did not cause it. Tariffs did. 

Trump is a comical figure who sincerely believes his gut has the answer to everything. Here we are 3 years in and what has his gut solved? 

Tariffs are not added to the trade deficit figures. They are a tax. 

They used exactly the same arguments a century ago, and economists are using the same arguments against. Does Trump really believe those guys used tariffs wrong? Are you really saying that? Trump is going to use them right? What has happened? Everything has slowed down. 

It's not a tectonic shift, it's a temporary shift. Even if he cheats, he won't win in 2020. He's lost women. Look at his rallies. Overwhelmingly old, white guys. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by James Gautreau

[James Gautreau + 86]

2 hours ago, Jabbar said:

James Gautreau

Do you still work for Baker Hughs/GE in Houston or are you another casualty of the Shale Revolution with an intense visceral hatred for anything related to shale bent on revenge for losing your job ? ? ?

Now a card carrying "Never Shaler"

Where are you working now ?  In Houston ?

 

 

I'm not a "Never Shaler" or a "Never Trumper," you Never Peaker. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by James Gautreau

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Trump is an interesting figure  (and, obviously, quite polarizing).  He is not a detail man, refuses to read background analyses, goes with his hunch.  That has the potential of becoming a mess, and it does in certain areas such as NATO.  Yet he seems to have put his pulse finger on the trade matters with China

This is like most things in life: it depends on your perspective. For example, I came from a farming background. Farmers are always the first to suffer from tariffs. Suicides in Midwest farmers--in the soybean belt--have quadrupled; farmers are also proud and independent. I submit to you the likelihood of the suffering already sustained by the farming community will never be compensated by gains down the road. And the factory workers? That's just not coming back, not in numbers large enough to make a difference. That pretty much leaves high-tech intellectual property. Arguably the company to have been victimized the most is Apple. Every company should be so lucky as Apple. We've changed the culture of China for . . . maybe twenty minutes . . . in the broad sweep of time. I think a good argument could be made that the trade war has accomplished nothing except grief and suffering, and political gain for Mr. Trump. (I voted for him.)

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

Even if he cheats, he won't win in 2020. He's lost women. Look at his rallies. Overwhelmingly old, white guys. 

No you're confusing rallies with this place James.

[Jabbar + 465]

38 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

I'm not a "Never Shaler" or a "Never Trumper," you Never Peaker. 

James chill .  .  .  

.  .  .     or as the Acadians say " Joie de Vivre "

Suggestion: tomorrow night steam a pot of crawfish and ice a case of Dixie beer and watch your Saints take on the Colts.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jabbar

[James Gautreau + 86]

Look at these Kentucky women. It's called Trump Fatigue  Syndrome. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/republicans-trump-voters-elections-impeachment-hearings/index.html

[Guest]

Look at this instead ... Way more fun.

https://www.facebook.com/trumptvofficial/videos/1269065889964511/

#DT2020 #BJ2020

(Note the tons of women).

Edited December 15, 2019 by Guest

[James Gautreau + 86]

White working-class women have been a reliably Republican-leaning constituency for the past generation. Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 is the only Democratic presidential candidate since 1980 who has carried them. Data measuring the 2016 vote show that Trump expanded the GOP margins with these women to the highest level in years: His advantage ranged from 21 percentage points, according to calculations by Catalist; to 23 points, according to Pew; to 27 points, according to the exit polls. — www.theatlantic.com/…

That seems to be changing. Detailed polling data published by the Washington Post suggests 62% of white women will college degrees now say they will definitely not vote for Trump (in 2016 only 51% voted for Clinton). The shift away from Trump is even more extreme among white women without college degrees. In 2016, 62% of them voted for Trump. Now 47% say they will definitely not vote for him. This seems to be in line with a trend noticed in 2018:

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

38 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

Do you remember that minor event back in the 1930's called the Great Depression? It was started by tariffs, and escalation, and finally world trade shutdown. The stock market crash did not cause it. Tariffs did. 

I am not going to debate the 1930's with you, I will only say that the conclusions are incorrect and the idea that tariffs caused the Depression is also incorrect. 

Meanwhile the US is well positioned to handle any global slowdown or collapse of world trade as the US is not a trading nation.  It is an internal-producing nation and is embarking on a 3-country major alliance and other, caribbean and central american, countries as satellite players.  The USA does not need to engage with anybody else. Period. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

All you folks are convinced that Trump will run for re-election.  I don't think so.  I suspect that Pence will be the nominee, and since the Dems are disorganized and out of touch, they will get hammered. 

[Guest]

Well shit if The Washington Post said so then case closed.

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Dems are disorganized and out of touch, they will get hammered. 

Exactly, I could run and beat Dems jeez. And possibly my cat could too. I keep asking Dems who this miracle candidate is and no one ever has an answer. There is a reason for this. 

DT2020 

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

convinced that Trump will run for re-election.  I don't think so.  I suspect that Pence will be the nominee

Nah he loves the power and limelight too much? Plus still a lot he wants to achieve or continue doing I imagine?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Guest

[James Gautreau + 86]

2 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Well shit if The Washington Post said so then case closed.

Exactly, I could run and beat Dems jeez. And possibly my cat.

DT2020 

Not without women you won't. And women have lost faith in Trump, do not like his bombastic style, and want a moderate Democrat. Only white men and a smaller and smaller  group of hardcore white women remain in the Trump base. I think Bloomberg would annihilate Trump. Can you imagine the debate? Of course not, Trump will bail and not do them like the man he most resembles did, LBJ. 

[James Gautreau + 86]

The Quinnipiac summary data is below:

 

6. In the 2020 general election for president, if Donald Trump is the Republican candidate, 
   would you definitely vote for him, consider voting for him, or would you definitely not 
   vote for him?

                                                               WHITE...…
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No 
Definitely vote      32%    78%     1%    22%    36%    28%    30%    45%
Consider voting      12     16      3     16     15      9     12     11
Definitely not vote  54      4     96     57     45     61     57     41
DK/NA                 3      2      -      5      3      2      2      3

                      AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE..…
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp 
Definitely vote      23%    29%    35%    38%    42%    34%    38%     5%    25%
Consider voting      19     15      9      8     15      8     11      5     19
Definitely not vote  57     54     54     51     41     55     49     89     52
DK/NA                 1      2      2      2      3      2      2      2      4


From July 25 - 28, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,306 voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points, including the design effect. The survey includes 579 Democrats and Democratic leaners with a margin of error of +/- 5.1 percentage points, including the design effect.

 

 

 

[James Gautreau + 86]

16 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am not going to debate the 1930's with you, I will only say that the conclusions are incorrect and the idea that tariffs caused the Depression is also incorrect. 

Meanwhile the US is well positioned to handle any global slowdown or collapse of world trade as the US is not a trading nation.  It is an internal-producing nation and is embarking on a 3-country major alliance and other, caribbean and central american, countries as satellite players.  The USA does not need to engage with anybody else. Period. 

America doesn't produce much of anything anymore except large industrial products like planes, gas turbines, drilling equipment, agriculture etc. But everything ordinary people use like what is contained in a typical Walmart is made in China. 

[James Gautreau + 86]

30 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

James chill .  .  .  

.  .  .     or as the Acadians say " Joie de Vivre "

Suggestion: tomorrow night steam a pot of crawfish and ice a case of Dixie beer and watch your Saints take on the Colts.

Steamed crawfish. Never had those. Had some steamed shrimp on Dauphine Island a couple of weeks ago. Tasted like shit. Mush better boiled. I don't they make Dixie Beer anymore. 

[Guest]

Meh, stats shmats. How many were in poll for a start? Do you believe every poll to be accurate? If you lived here and had an idea about past UK elections and polls leading up to it you wouldn't. Polls can be fixed and / or biased. Where is the ''are Dems an utter joke?'' poll. What states were polled? There are tons of issues I could throw back James in fairness. We will see next year when you are proven wrong.   

1 minute ago, James Gautreau said:

I think Bloomberg would annihilate Trump. Can you imagine the debate?

Ok tell me a few of Bloomberg's magical policies ... You don't see him brought in as some kinda desperation card at all? 

@Tom Kirkman ... I need those Bloomberg quote memes to show he's real down to earth and cares about the everyday man on the street  ... you're up. 

[James Gautreau + 86]

Once reliably Republican-voting, college-educated white women — who make up a large portion of women voters in the suburbs — flipped from Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by a narrow 6-point margin. That gap is now a chasm. In a poll of 59 battleground House races nationwide, college-educated white women now favor Democrats over Republicans by nearly 30 points.

[James Gautreau + 86]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Meh, stats shmats. How many were in poll for a start? Do you believe every poll to be accurate? If you lived here and had an idea about past UK elections and polls leading up to it you wouldn't. Polls can be fixed and / or biased. Where is the ''are Dems an utter joke?'' poll. What states were polled? There are tons of issues I could throw back James in fairness. We will see next year when you are proven wrong.   

Ok tell me a few of Bloomberg's magical policies ... You don't see him brought in as some kinda desperation card at all? 

@Tom Kirkman ... I need those Bloomberg quote memes to show he's real down to earth and cares about the everyday man on the street  ... you're up. 

I don't care about what they promise, I care about what their record is. Bloomberg has it all. Super successful businessman. Good politician. Good record in New York. His one problem are blacks. He was racist in some policies in New York City. But no back person would ever vote for Trump now. Even Trump's African American has left the GOP and is running for congress as an independent. Promises, spomishes. Remember the Wall. Remember who was going to pay for it? Remember the cheaper, better healthcare. Remember the winning we would all get so sick of doing. Remember all the great deals he would make. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

That gap is now a chasm. In a poll of 59 battleground House races nationwide, college-educated white women now favor Democrats over Republicans by nearly 30 points.

Stats shmats, only ones that matter are the ones on the day and it's 11 months away.

I could do ''a poll'' of this forum and say ''well shit, Trump looks to have 90% of the vote'' and publish that as ''in a poll''.

[James Gautreau + 86]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Stats shmats, only ones that matter are the ones on the day and it's 11 months away.

I could do ''a poll'' of this forum and say ''well shit, Trump looks to have 90% of the vote'' and publish that as ''in a poll''.

But it turned out to be true. 2018 was a blue wave. They took 40 seats and flipped the House of Representatives. Trump fatigue will have 2 more years to add to that bag of bricks.