Shale Oil Fiasco

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

51 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Again, this is not ‘new’ technology.

No, it's not, Mr. Buckland. What is new . . . every day . . . is the refinement of the computer software that takes that data and beats the truth out of it, and the machine learning that recognizes patterns--hundreds of thousands of them. I don't think that anyone who has spent any time analyzing this industry thinks it can talk the rock out of much more oil than is currently coming forth, but to a guy who grew up hearing you can't get blood out of a turnip, it's pretty impressive when some rock is giving up 20% of the oil in place. Again, we're here, in shale country, as a default move. I realize you've worked in many different parts of the world, on derricks that were sophisticated, and that you saw huge amounts of oil come out of some of those finds. But for some reason--it wasn't just Deepwater Horizon--many of those became less productive, and with the bust, new replacements weren't looked for. That's all coming back. In the interim, I stubbornly maintain, the shale basins have saved this country--the proud United States of America--from being dependent on, as T. Boone used to say, countries that don't like us much. I suspect that your work in various countries created in you a certain bond, maybe even a knowledge, that a full purse can always buy oil. I don't share that bond, that knowledge. I believe that oil is, today, right now, helping to keep our country safe, and that without the shale oil, we would be less safe. That's the main reason I like to see these improvements. I can't argue on your terms: I don't have that hands-on experience. I don't even want to argue. But I do read, and even though most of the bright kids have shunned the computer end of oil and gas, thinking it's not a job security field and maybe even tainted, this computer-driven data collection and pattern recognition has resulted in some staggering short-term gains. You're right, though, this will be run through in a frenzy and the whole shebang will move on, and on, until all the shale basins are pretty well depleted. Refracking is a bigger deal than has been fully disclosed on this site, and that's basin dependent. The Bakken is particularly amenable to that: some say 60% of all wells. So is the Eagle Ford. So that'll be the next boom. Then there'll be another refracking of the very best wells. And that'll be that. At least that's my take on it. This frenzy may move on to the Vaca Meurto but I sincerely doubt it. This e-fracking takes quite a fleet. I just don't see that happening on a giant scale down in Argentina. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Gerry,

I get your points and agree that in the short term, relatively speaking, the shale game has significantly eased the county’s dependence on foreign oil.

What I am seriously worried about is the amount of ‘faith’ that people have put into the long term ‘staying power’ of this ‘miracle’. If it lasts for 20 years or so - fantastic! If it doesn’t, and I think even yourself would agree that some ‘cracks are showing’, then it is possible that our long term energy policy is being based on erroneous assumptions, that we are burning goodwill and bridges internationally and that we are causing serious damage to a national resource in an effort to deplete it/produce it as quickly as possible.

This Shale Oil arrogance could end up costing us greatly in the near future.

If, for example, the shale oil industry fails to perform as touted, the debt load becomes insupportable and the bankruptcies accelerate....who is going to be left ‘holding the bag’ to plug and abandon these wells? The answer is, the American taxpayer. Yet another ‘black eye’ for the American oil industry.  

[Boat + 1,324]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Gerry,

I get your points and agree that in the short term, relatively speaking, the shale game has significantly eased the county’s dependence on foreign oil.

What I am seriously worried about is the amount of ‘faith’ that people have put into the long term ‘staying power’ of this ‘miracle’. If it lasts for 20 years or so - fantastic! If it doesn’t, and I think even yourself would agree that some ‘cracks are showing’, then it is possible that our long term energy policy is being based on erroneous assumptions, that we are burning goodwill and bridges internationally and that we are causing serious damage to a national resource in an effort to deplete it/produce it as quickly as possible.

This Shale Oil arrogance could end up costing us greatly in the near future.

If, for example, the shale oil industry fails to perform as touted, the debt load becomes insupportable and the bankruptcies accelerate....who is going to be left ‘holding the bag’ to plug and abandon these wells? The answer is, the American taxpayer. Yet another ‘black eye’ for the American oil industry.  

You keep worrying about shales future.? Why? If the US uses up all the oil over time why does using the shale portion up now cause concern. What are your numbers on shale debt. Awhile back I read 160 billion. For perspective Apple has 300 billion in surplus cash. Lots of money laying around doing nothing.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

My concern is that in the rush to produce these shale oil fields we are actually damaging them (drawdown too fast, spacing too close, etc...). Not to mention the natural gas being wasted by flaring.

I do not have any debt numbers handy, but surely you have been reading about the debt issue in various forums and journals.

Are you insinuating that there is no debt issue in the shale oil industry?

[Jabbar + 465]

U.S Energy Secretary Permian slowdown just a pause.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-18/u-s-energy-chief-shrugs-off-permian-oil-slowdown-as-a-pause

My feelings exactly.  A pause.  The cure for over leveraged shale producers is at least half of them have to go away.  Merge , sell out , file for Chapter 11 and reorganize.  

Mistakes were made.  Can't turn back the clock.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I get your points and agree that in the short term, relatively speaking, the shale game has significantly eased the county’s dependence on foreign oil.

What I am seriously worried about is the amount of ‘faith’ that people have put into the long term ‘staying power’ of this ‘miracle’. If it lasts for 20 years or so - fantastic! If it doesn’t, and I think even yourself would agree that some ‘cracks are showing’, then it is possible that our long term energy policy is being based on erroneous assumptions, that we are burning goodwill and bridges internationally and that we are causing serious damage to a national resource in an effort to deplete it/produce it as quickly as possible.

This Shale Oil arrogance could end up costing us greatly in the near future.

If, for example, the shale oil industry fails to perform as touted, the debt load becomes insupportable and the bankruptcies accelerate....who is going to be left ‘holding the bag’ to plug and abandon these wells? The answer is, the American taxpayer. Yet another ‘black eye’ for the American oil industry.  

Doug, you're entirely right. Greed has always run a large segment of the oil and gas business. Those early Texas and Oklahoma fields were run through with little regard for slush pits or men lost on rigs--it was all about profit. Through the years that attitude has created great wealth and horrible destruction. This is no different. The Texas Railroad Commission has become part of the problem, not the tight regulatory solution that it has always been--they have extended permits for flaring and venting for up to a year, even when a pipeline was either coming soon or in place; people just didn't want to pay to get their NG taken away.

Interestingly, the massive debt capitulation is going to be part of the solution: Wall Street is going to lose most of that money and Goldman Sachs and others have soured intensely on oil in general and shale in specifics. They want no part of it. The new generation wants no part of oil. But the world still runs on oil and gas: it has given the citizens of the world warmth, cooling, means for transportation, drugs, surgery, a whole way of life, and everyone who has had a role in that should be proud. In a nutshell, oil and gas have basically allowed the human race to develop to this point. When this shale thing is over, and it will be over at some point, there will be about a million holes in the ground that have to be plugged, at a cost of about $30,000 per. That's thirty billion--a pittance in the total context of things.

What's much more alarming is all the water that was taken out of the planet's life cycle and put down disposal wells--no experiment like that has ever been run before. The good news is that, when you ratio it against all the water on the planet, it's a pittance too. The methane that's being vented has been overblown, but is still a huge black eye.

Doug, I get everything that you're saying and couldn't agree more. HOWEVER, when you back up and study the alternatives, well there wasn't much to do but this. Take oil-producing countries: Saudi Arabia has spread terror to the extent that most of the men that caused 9/11 were native Saudis. Our response?--invade Iraq. The rest of OPEC is unreliable and primitive. Russia is our natural enemy. Norway has gotten an acute case of guilt over their oil wealth and even sold off their stock holdings in oil companies. Venezuela, the largest source, is a mess. Brazil is just about as bad.

Ex-shale, the natural price for oil these days, by my calculation, would be about $200, and the price of NG would be about $10. Sure as shootin', we're tearing up the landscape in first one place, then another. I can't tell you why exploration for offshore sites basically shut down there for awhile, but it sure slowed. It's coming back because Exxon and BP realize that's the next big big--as reliable as ever. More importantly, it's out of sight. The world is a mess! Despite too much oil on the market, politics have mandated that we still allow corn oil distillates to be added to gasoline. When oil climbed above its breakeven price, giving some of these shale guys a little breather, our own president tweeted to the Saudis to pump and dump--he had them by the balls and they knew it. To be fair, though I voted for the man, that was a pretty damn harsh thing to do to your own people! Even if there are a few jackasses in the bunch.

Look, Doug, you've been around the horn. This is going to turn. The climate thing may even turn. Why? Because when you consider the damage done by the maritime industry, spewing out sulfur oxides way over what all the cars and trucks are doing, possibly (if someone in the industry ever bothered to calculate it) more than everything else that is fossil fuel related is doing, well, finally changing 3.5% sulfur fuel to 0.5% may be enough to put us back into the late stages of the ice age we were said to be in, just three decades ago. This IMO2020 is so much bigger than anything has been allowed. In fact, when you context the shale in with the maritime sulfur spew, the methane that is being vented and flared represents the moral equivalent of pissing into the ocean to make the waters rise. Why has there been so little attention to this? Why no little sixteen-year-old girl coming to the microphone on this? Because it's on the oceans, mostly out of sight--I doubt if our person of the year even knows about it, or the fact that her socialistic home country is part of the problem. It's easy to get a satellite image of the Permian and see that flaring lights are more conspicuous than New York City. It's hard to follow the sulfur spew from 90,000 oceangoing freighters.

In summary, while you're completely right in your statements and musings, and I can tell they're from the heart. I have a different view of the world. I am distrustful of the Saudis, Russians, and OPEC in general. I think they would love to harm us. I am belatedly alarmed at the maritime industry and wonder who in the hell was regulating them and why they went to sleep. Yes, shale is a nightmare, but in the total picture, it's only a small pimple on the ass of progress, not a running sore like the maritime industry and what might have happened if we'd continued our lemmings-to-the-sea dependence on foreign oil. 

[mr rex juras mellon 0]

shale oil moon landing, space shuttle it is all like movie star wars. fake. not real, just rel.

these bufoons and cruel comedians in wallstreet and the ignoran hoes of energy dept will pay the dead ly price-they will be stripped butt nkd and shamed across usa.

 

[mr rex juras mellon 0]

what is not a haox? that bill clinton is actually  a male prostitue. and this will be nailed on his forehaed alongwith his coffin.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hoo boy ...

[PE Scott + 563]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My concern is that in the rush to produce these shale oil fields we are actually damaging them (drawdown too fast, spacing too close, etc...). Not to mention the natural gas being wasted by flaring.

This is absolutely true in some areas and I've witnessed it first hand. I can assure you the operators that make those mistakes try hard not to repeat them though. I also think mistakes would have been made regardless of the pace of development. That's the price of progress sometimes and its hard to predict what will happen a mile underground. 

Here again, this is where I think companies like Chevron and Exxon will take a more measured and result driven approach to developing their large and contiguous mineral holdings. This should be more efficient than some of what we've seen to date.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Jabbar (or anyone, really, following the hydrocarbon/energy world) ...

Article from Euractiv - Dec. 17 (yesterday) from Georgi Gotev describing how both the Ukraine and Bulgaria have purchased LNG as it is cheaper than Russian piped gas.

As difficult as it might be to accept that, you folks may well join in with the large number of people throughout the world who are on track to be stunned at just how profoundly, how quickly natgas will loom large on the energy scene.

Just as coal has been rocked by natgas electricity production (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine hardware playing a crucial contributory role), now piped gas is being adversely jolted.

In the not-too-distant future, oil - with transportation being its dominant end use component - is in the crosshairs of an entire array of future technologies as the cost of heat energy in gaseous form is ~1|4 to ~1/5 the cost of the same energy contained in earl.

These emerging technologies/processes/hardware are evolving at lightening speed.

Far flung  power plants from the massive Sergipe to Thi Vai, tiny New Caledonia to Benin show how the FSRU, Gas to Power model is playing out.

From Fairbanks to bunkering barges in Singapore, the economical handling of LNG is proving to be a paradigm shattering development that will severely impact those who rely upon existing realities in this energy sphere.

[Jabbar + 465]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Jabbar (or anyone, really, following the hydrocarbon/energy world) ...

Article from Euractiv - Dec. 17 (yesterday) from Georgi Gotev describing how both the Ukraine and Bulgaria have purchased LNG as it is cheaper than Russian piped gas.

As difficult as it might be to accept that, you folks may well join in with the large number of people throughout the world who are on track to be stunned at just how profoundly, how quickly natgas will loom large on the energy scene.

Just as coal has been rocked by natgas electricity production (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine hardware playing a crucial contributory role), now piped gas is being adversely jolted.

In the not-too-distant future, oil - with transportation being its dominant end use component - is in the crosshairs of an entire array of future technologies as the cost of heat energy in gaseous form is ~1|4 to ~1/5 the cost of the same energy contained in earl.

These emerging technologies/processes/hardware are evolving at lightening speed.

Far flung  power plants from the massive Sergipe to Thi Vai, tiny New Caledonia to Benin show how the FSRU, Gas to Power model is playing out.

From Fairbanks to bunkering barges in Singapore, the economical handling of LNG is proving to be a paradigm shattering development that will severely impact those who rely upon existing realities in this energy sphere.

Coffee

If you have been watching the news lately you may notice that Ukraine and Russia are having a little spat the last few years.  Some call it a war.

You think Ukraine will buy piped gas from Russia ? 

Seems Russia wants to now reincorporate their satellite countries Ukraine, Bulgaria and others.  

Sounds like you're invested in some LNG firms ? 

Russian additional gas pipeline to Germany operational 2020. German Corporations are major investors in Russia's new pipeline.  You think U.S. LNG can compete  ? 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jabbar

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

As difficult as it might be to accept that, you folks may well join in with the large number of people throughout the world who are on track to be stunned at just how profoundly, how quickly natgas will loom large on the energy scene.

Absolutely: it's the world's cheapest form of energy, if you are interested in suppressing sulfur oxide emissions. Carbon capture is also coming soon. If there's a revolutionary impact of shale--and there is--it has to be the by-product of natural gas so pure that you can burn it in your stove. With the decline of nuclear in many countries, and the absolute ban of coal, LNG is going to be massive. I can't imagine that, over time, LNG would be cheaper than piped NG, however, though it would of course take some time to amortize the pipeline. Russia is like the US in one regard only: they have NG coming out their ears. They're getting rid of it via Nord Stream I and II under the Baltic, the entirety of Pakistan, and to Turkey if they can. But combine China and India, you've still got nearly 3 billion people with most of them ascending the socioeconomic ladder: cars, pharmaceuticals, plastics. More and more, crude oil will be going into petrochemical plants, while less and less is used for vehicular use. 

[wrs + 893]

A lot of gas is produced from the Wells in the Wolfcamp and more in the Bone Springs, GORs are higher in the latter.  I see shale as being a good bridge product from the oil age because it produces oil that is closer to gasoline than any of the conventional oils and it also produces large quantities of the cleaner gas as a good side effect.  As gasoline demand drops due to EV acceptance, the lighter oils will be produce more of what is needed i.e. gasoline and naptha.

We have just begun to see additional gas takeaway capacity being available to the Permian producers. The 2.2bcf/day Gulf Coast Express came on line in September.  A lot more takeaway capacity is scheduled to come on line in the next 12 months.  All of it will be going directly to pipelines that serve the LNG compression facilites along the Texas Gulf Coast.  Cheap US gas should provide good input to those LNG plants.

Edited December 18, 2019 by wrs

[Jabbar + 465]

54 minutes ago, wrs said:

A lot of gas is produced from the Wells in the Wolfcamp and more in the Bone Springs, GORs are higher in the latter.  I see shale as being a good bridge product from the oil age because it produces oil that is closer to gasoline than any of the conventional oils and it also produces large quantities of the cleaner gas as a good side effect.  As gasoline demand drops due to EV acceptance, the lighter oils will be produce more of what is needed i.e. gasoline and naptha.

We have just begun to see additional gas takeaway capacity being available to the Permian producers. The 2.2bcf/day Gulf Coast Express came on line in September.  A lot more takeaway capacity is scheduled to come on line in the next 12 months.  All of it will be going directly to pipelines that serve the LNG compression facilites along the Texas Gulf Coast.  Cheap US gas should provide good input to those LNG plants.

I'm All for NG.  The growth will be huge.  Supply even greater.  With an abundance of gas now being discovered around the world and competitive environment suppressing prices the differentiator will become (has become) transportation costs.  Pipeline vs. LNG . 

About 6 years ago Shell was developing business plan to start compressed gas service stations.  Some companies have designed mini LNG Liquifiction Plants.  

Lot happening.  But don't think replaces oil or electric vehicles for markets.  

 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Jabbar

" ... watching the news lately ... Ukraine and Russia having a little spat".

My attention to these matters predates the Maidan events in February, 2014.

While I have familiarity with individuals such as Nuland, Kolomoisky, Zakarchenko, Saakashvili (just how does a former Georgian president become Governor of Odessa Oblast again?), et al., I unreservedly do NOT claim to be an expert.

Although this is not an appropriate forum, IMHO, to range into the political world (impressive Kerch Bridge, though), suffice to say I have some familiarity with events in that part of the world.

 

(Zero investments in LNG, or ANY companies, BTW).

 

Again, for those with eyes to see ... Russian gas (in similar fashion to KSA oil, PDVSA, PETRONAS operations, ... ANY regime whose very existence is reliant upon hydrocarbon revenues) is NOT exclusively a market-price driven commodity.

In the specific case of US LNG, a HUGE addendum is the price indexing of HH versus various oil indices.

The bigger issue may entail the production cost of raw US natgas.

Indications now and far out show rock bottom numbers.

Ancillary industries are springing up to capture this value.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Maddoux

 The new Siberian - China pipe is said to have cost $29 billion to reach the border.

Extending delivery down to the south of the country might - according to some analysts - raise the locational price higher than imported US LNG.

 

As ridiculous as this naturally may appear, the Port Kembla LNG import terminal in Oz may ultimately source supply from the US. (Cheniere has already signed contracts).

 

The Lego-like assembly of Asian and Italian sourced LNG liquefaction modules has prompted a plummeting of LNG capital cost. Aussie projects are VERY vulnerable.

The transportation, storage, and handling aspects of this commodity are - likewise - undergoing a profound transformation.

Big changes be a'comin.

 

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

20 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

As ridiculous as this naturally may appear, the Port Kembla LNG import terminal in Oz may ultimately source supply from the US. (Cheniere has already signed contracts).

You're right: that sounds ridiculous on the face of it. It would seem that, with the coming of IMO2020 in just a few days, the higher price of maritime fuel would squeeze the margins on LNG. I suppose it has gotten so cheap that there's room to grow the market. I actually do think NG is going to become the dominant energy source in many parts of the world. The market in China obviously poses the biggest potential--providing the trade agreement gets solved. Texas oil--Big Oil--has Mr. Trump's ear. I suspect that an LNG purchase order will be part of the deal.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Maddoux

Current cost to build state of the art, 170,000 bcm LNG carrier is about $200 million.

Daily charter rates (Lots of variables involved)  run about $100k/day ... but - and here's the 'catch' - fuel cost historically comprises ~2/3 of maritime operational costs.

Using the Boil Off Gas which naturally occurs (~.15% volume per day) for fuel for the engines, combined with onboard re-compression so that there is virtually NO loss of cargo, enables operators to ship LNG globally with ever decreasing cost ... practically  "free fuel".

Furthermore, the ship builders in Korea, in China continue to innovate and bring down both the time and cost to build these carriers.

Biggest area of future potentialities may lie in the 'downsizing' of marketable regions.

The planned LNG terminal - coincident with the new power plant - in Barcarena, Brazil, is being accompanied by the efforts of Golar to introduce small size bunker vessels with which to supply the region's aluminum smelters and fertilizer plants.

The ripple on effects are yet to be even visualized, let alone realized.

$2.50/Henry Hub will bring about epochal change.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Wow!

Great data. Thanks. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

I'm awaiting LNG Canada 2025. I hold Painted Pony stock . Alot of data in their corporate presentation. I traded it during the FID for LNGC made some fast cash bought some on a dip and am now bag holding after catching a falling knife :$. 

https://paintedpony.ca/investors/presentations/default.aspx

Edited December 19, 2019 by Rob Kramer
Leg work to website

[Mike Shellman + 548]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

$2.50/Henry Hub will bring about epochal change.

Gerard, welcome to oilprice.com; you'll do very well here, I think, and have a lot of fun with your tired old bullshit. Much like the shale oil mess, very few here understand shale gas well economics, or corporate finance; the fact that productivity is not the same as profitability hardly matters to anyone, particularly day traders and royalty owners. 

By the way, $2.50 per MMBTU? Gimme a break. Dominion prices are now a little over a buck and change and EQT, Cabot, Antero, etc. is in the dumpster. Chevron is getting out of the APP Basin so fast they're leaving a vacuum behind them. You "epocal change" is totally dependent on fiscal responsibility and the very high probability of more overleveraged oversupply that kills prices.  Good luck with that. 

Keep telling folks what they want to hear and you'll be popular.  Merry Christmas, buddy! 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

49 minutes ago, Mike Shellman said:

By the way, $2.50 per MMBTU?

Well, the man did say $2.50 at the Henry Hub, Mike. You're right: some of us on this site are naive old fools. One thing I can tell, Coffee is no dunce. There are a lot of people who talk their book on this site. I sell quite a bit of natural gas and I would like to think it's going to be $2.50 . . . but with all that's happening, I think more like a buck fifty. You never can tell, though--the Permian is slowing down in a major way and that's the basin that produces (by far) the most natural gas. I would go out on a limb here and say that if a trade deal can be settled with China, and if oil and LNG are part of it (which I think it will), and if the world can avoid a global recession, then the calculus just changed in a major way. China's use of coal is skyrocketing . . . but mainly because of the trade war. Beijing is so polluted that people are dying from it on a regular basis, a concept that's not lost on President Xi. I believe he would jump at the chance to end the trade war, buy more soybeans, pigs, LNG and crude oil. If he can get a secure deal, and if we help him set them up, most of those little coal-fired teapots will be converted to NG utility plants. Same with India. Together that's almost 3 billion people. Anyway, your post made me curious, so here's the chart (June 2008 gave me a chuckle; back in '85 we were selling scarce and very deep natural gas for almost $13):

Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price (Dollars per Million Btu)

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
1997	3.45	2.15	1.89	2.03	2.25	2.20	2.19	2.49	2.88	3.07	3.01	2.35
1998	2.09	2.23	2.24	2.43	2.14	2.17	2.17	1.85	2.02	1.91	2.12	1.72
1999	1.85	1.77	1.79	2.15	2.26	2.30	2.31	2.80	2.55	2.73	2.37	2.36
2000	2.42	2.66	2.79	3.04	3.59	4.29	3.99	4.43	5.06	5.02	5.52	8.90
2001	8.17	5.61	5.23	5.19	4.19	3.72	3.11	2.97	2.19	2.46	2.34	2.30
2002	2.32	2.32	3.03	3.43	3.50	3.26	2.99	3.09	3.55	4.13	4.04	4.74
2003	5.43	7.71	5.93	5.26	5.81	5.82	5.03	4.99	4.62	4.63	4.47	6.13
2004	6.14	5.37	5.39	5.71	6.33	6.27	5.93	5.41	5.15	6.35	6.17	6.58
2005	6.15	6.14	6.96	7.16	6.47	7.18	7.63	9.53	11.75	13.42	10.30	13.05
2006	8.69	7.54	6.89	7.16	6.25	6.21	6.17	7.14	4.90	5.85	7.41	6.73
2007	6.55	8.00	7.11	7.60	7.64	7.35	6.22	6.22	6.08	6.74	7.10	7.11
2008	7.99	8.54	9.41	10.18	11.27	12.69	11.09	8.26	7.67	6.74	6.68	5.82
2009	5.24	4.52	3.96	3.50	3.83	3.80	3.38	3.14	2.99	4.01	3.66	5.35
2010	5.83	5.32	4.29	4.03	4.14	4.80	4.63	4.32	3.89	3.43	3.71	4.25
2011	4.49	4.09	3.97	4.24	4.31	4.54	4.42	4.06	3.90	3.57	3.24	3.17
2012	2.67	2.51	2.17	1.95	2.43	2.46	2.95	2.84	2.85	3.32	3.54	3.34
2013	3.33	3.33	3.81	4.17	4.04	3.83	3.62	3.43	3.62	3.68	3.64	4.24
2014	4.71	6.00	4.90	4.66	4.58	4.59	4.05	3.91	3.92	3.78	4.12	3.48
2015	2.99	2.87	2.83	2.61	2.85	2.78	2.84	2.77	2.66	2.34	2.09	1.93
2016	2.28	1.99	1.73	1.92	1.92	2.59	2.82	2.82	2.99	2.98	2.55	3.59
2017	3.30	2.85	2.88	3.10	3.15	2.98	2.98	2.90	2.98	2.88	3.01	2.82
2018	3.87	2.67	2.69	2.80	2.80	2.97	2.83	2.96	3.00	3.28	4.09	4.04
2019	3.11	2.69	2.95	2.65	2.64	2.40	2.37	2.22	2.56	2.33	2.65

 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Roughneck 

Greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Your site not only continuously presents many items of interest,  the historical  content does a great service to those who have gone before.

In fact, it was the mention by Mr. Buckland of the tragic Piper Alpha upthread that prompted my posting.

As you may remember,  I worked on the Piper A during its construction back in the winter of '77/'78.

 

Unfortunately, my input is anything but 'telling folks what they want to hear' as these developments are as threatening to many as they are imminent/occurring.

The well recognized financial fragility of the upstream boys - especially the gas producers - may mask the future strengths of the survivors ... in whatever iterations that may emerge.

What people - most especially those directly involved in da bidness - might benefit from is in knowing stuff like the eye popping production from the newer Appalachian Basin gas wells (new quarterly record out of Ohio ... big monthly drop - October - from Pennsylvania).

Not uncommon for the most prodigious wells to produce at, or near, 10 billion cubic feet first year online.

Thattsa 10 with a 'b'.

4 wells on the same Carpenter pad from EQT in Greene county have come online sequentially over the past year with an average of 9 months production.

At a total cum of 39 billion cubic feet - thattsa 3 and a 9 and a 'b' -  these wells can supply a year's worth of residential gas for the combined populations of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and have plenty to spare.

4 wells.

9 months.

~$50 million to D&C.

Tough to compete with that, even as the Texas operators burn the stuff off.

New world dawnin', Mr. Roughneck.

 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Mike Shellman said:

Weeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!             those coffeeguyzz will be truly pisste off.