Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Alaska Pipeline: Viable Only Ten More Years?

Link here.
The Trans Alaska Pipeline System, Alaska's main economic artery, may only have 10 years of service left if oil flows continue to dwindle at current rates, according to a report issued on Wednesday by the system's operator.

The pipeline can operate reliably with oil flows as low as 350,000 barrels per day, but throughput below that threatens its viability.

That threshold -- expected to be reached in about a decade if oil production continues to decline at current rates -- is the first ever identified as a specific minimum throughput for reliable operations.

The 800-mile pipeline shipped an average of about 605,000 barrels per day in May, less than a third of the 2 million barrel peak achieved in 1988.
Yup. And North Dakota will exceed 605,000 bbls long before the decade is out.

Oil Queen of California -- Absolutely Nothing To Do With The Bakken -- But Maybe Some Lessons To Be Learned

I'm enjoying some time with my grandchildren in southern California.

Today we visited the Cabrillo Beach and Cabrillo Marine Museum. We last visited the marine museum some years ago. We remembered it as a small hole-in-the-wall museum. Wow, has it changed. The original marine museum is still there but they have added a touch tank.

But in addition, they've added a discovery center, a state-of-the-art marine research library, and a research area. We were completely blown away. My first impression was that it was nicer than the Boston Aquarium. Then I remembered the seals, the penguins, and Boston Aquarium's own touch tank. For children under the age of eight years, I would recommend the Cabrillo Marine Museum. It's smaller, a bit more educational for that age group, more intimate, less easy to get loss, but one really can't go wrong with either.

Oh, by the way, the Cabrillo Marine Museum is free. Yes, free. Suggested donation but my hunch is that most of the locals who visit frequently donate only occasionally.

But I digress. I assume most folks coming to a blog on the North Dakota oil industry are not interested in reading about a marine museum in southern California. There is another reason for writing about the museum.

As noted, the research library is a state-of-the art complex run by a very engaging librarian. She pointed out one of the library's new books, a history of the Los Angeles Port. Interestingly, every page in the book, it seems, refers to the port as the San Pedro Port, but that's another story.

There is a chapter in the book on the oil industry in southern California. There's an interesting story of a young woman who came from Boston to San Pedro, California, to teach piano lessons. She got caught up in the oil frenzy at the turn of the century, and actually invested in a well that happened to be located next to where she was living.

With the money she made from that first half interest in the well next to her, she bought her own rig, hired a crew, and started drilling. 

To make a long story short, she ended up controlling ALL the oil from the Los Angeles oil field, one of the largest fields in the United States.
Summers expanded her holdings into real estate as World War I demand for petroleum increased her profits. She bought some of the first motion picture theaters in Los Angeles as well as apartment houses, several San Fernando Valley ranches, and a Wilshire Boulevard mansion.

As the Los Angeles oil boom waned, Summers moved into her elegant hotel appropriately named the Queen. Years later she recalled, “Oh, how scared I was sometimes! I would start in on a big deal and then get scared and wonder where I’d land. But I usually came out all right.”
She continued to teach piano lessons.

Her name was Emma Summers. Her story can be read here. She became known as the Oil Queen of California.

Against My Better Judgement ...

Update

July 6, 2011: Yup, I was right. The New York Times story linked below was inaccurate in many areas. Williston's McDonald's manager sets the record straight. (Regional link will break soon.)

Original Post

I'm posting a link to a story from The New York Times written by a writer for an environmental blog.

The focus of the article is all the problems Williston is facing with growth -- as if most other cities and states wouldn't love to have that problem. 

I scanned the article quickly; it seems fairly well-balanced. As challenging as things are in the Bakken, a couple of important notes: a) everyone in Williston has a job who wants one; and, b) despite the huge influx of outsiders, the crime rate seems not to be a problem.

I read the regional and local papers on-line almost every day; folks send me links I might have missed; and there have been literally no stories about problems related to crime in Williston and western North Dakota. Knock on wood.

I have seen no articles on issues with entertainment at the local bars.

The big story last summer was the number of folks living in tents in the local parks but that seems to have been handles humanely and appropriately and seems not to be an issue this year. But even then, with small tent communities in the local parks, there seemed to be no significant problems.

With all the traffic, I have not seen an increase in the number of stories related to traffic incidents or traffic deaths. Coincidentally the only North Dakota traffic death I remember reading about this week was one that occurred in Grand Forks, three hundred fifty miles to the east.

As noted, I scanned the article. If the writer did not address crime or traffic fatalities, he/she chose to overlook some of the more positive things among all the challenges. 

If I remember correctly, the "dateline" was June 29, 2011, Bismarck, North Dakota. I'm not sure why the article wasn't filed from Williston. Did the writer phone it in?

Video of Lake Darling, Souris River Flooding, Minot, North Dakota. AMTRAK Across ND Suspended Until Further Notice

It's just a minute long, but may interest some folks.


Link here. I doubt the link will last long.

Meanwhile, Amtrak across North Dakota has been suspended until further notice. 

Abraxas Provides An Operational Update -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

Link here.
In McKenzie County, North Dakota, Abraxas drilled the Stenehjem 27-34 1H to a total measured depth of 16,504 feet, including a 5,965 foot lateral in the middle Bakken formation, and completed the well with a 17-stage fracture stimulation. The well was recently placed on production, including gas (and natural gas liquids) directly into the sales line, and is currently in the early stages of cleaning up and producing at rates in excess of 800 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

In various counties in North Dakota and Montana, fourteen non-operated horizontal wells, targeting the Bakken or Three Forks formation, in which Abraxas owns a working interest are currently in progress or recently placed on-line.

Since January 2010, Abraxas has elected to participate in 19 gross (1.02 net) non-operated wells in the Bakken / Three Forks play.

Let's See: Release Oil Today for $90/Bbl; Buy It Back Next Year to Refill The Reserve at $100/Bbl

The government is willing to sell 30 million bbls this month from the reserve for $90/bbl --> $2.7 billion.

Then, the government will buy 30 million bbls next year to refill the reserve at $100/bbl --> $3.0 billion. And, of course, taking oil off the market to put in the reserve will raise the price of oil, all things being equal.

And so far, "no one" agrees that there was an emergency requiring release of any oil in the first place, except IEA, I guess.  Oil is now slightly higher in price than before the release was announced.

And the amount of oil released from US reserves amounted to 8.5 hours worth of global consumption, if it's true that the entire amount (60 million bbls) represented 17 hours worth of global consumption. I haven't confirmed those figures yet with The New York Times.

Natural Gas Demands Starting to Exceed Infrastructure

Link here. This link will probably break soon; it's a great article. The headline emphasizes natural gas, but there's a lot about crude oil and other wet gases, and the Bakken is mentioned.
An average $8.2 billion/year will have to be spent by 2035 for the US and Canada to accommodate new natural gas supplies, particularly from prolific shale plays, and meet growing demand, a study commissioned by the INGAA Foundation concluded.

Some $205.2 billion will be needed for mainlines, laterals, processing, storage, compression, and gathering lines, it indicated.

The study by ICF International updated one in October 2009 for the foundation, which is associated with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Santa, also INGAA president, said the update came after less than 2 years, instead of the usual 4, because the North American gas supply situation has changed so dramatically as more gas is recovered from previously inaccessible tight shale formations.
In addition:
There also will be demand for pipeline capacity to transport or process NGLs recovered from wet gas produced from many shale formations, noted Harry Vidas, an ICF upstream supply and economics specialist who wrote the report’s section on anticipated NGLs and crude oil needs. “The expenditures are going to be quite large,” he said. “Almost all of the plays have wet components which have to be removed and sold before the gas is dry enough to put into a pipeline.”
And with regard to pipelines for crude oil:
Vidas said as Alaskan oil production declines, US West Coast refineries will need to get crude feedstock elsewhere and likely will turn to crude recovered from Alberta’s oil sands, shipped by pipeline to a British Columbia port, and loaded onto tankers bound for refineries in California and Washington. New crude production from the Bakken and Three Forks shale formations in North Dakota and Montana, and the Niobrara shale in the Denver, Powder River, and Green River Basins of Wyoming and Colorado also will support demand for another 5 million b/d of crude pipeline capacity by 2035, he said.

OPEC: the Release Could Backfire, Part II

Link here.

Exactly what I said just a couple of days ago. I guess OPEC got its feelings hurt.

The Real Reason Environmentalists Hate Fracking

Back on June 15, 2011, I posted a story and asked folk what was the first thing they thought of when they read the story.

The story had to do with fracking and my first thought after reading the article was that the environmentalists were surprised how fast fracking success took off. Caught off-guard, those folks are now doing what they can to kill the industry.

Well, lo and behold, someone else has picked up on that and ran with it.

It comes from HotAir.com: The New York Times Natural Gas Fiasco.

Here's the gist of the article that caught Greg's interest and alerted me to it:
Both quotes suggest Urbina [the author of The New York Times story] had the facts at his fingertips — but deliberately disregarded them. The seeming anti-natural gas agenda this reveals perplexes me, until I consider what Ed wrote just this morning in his defense of hydraulic fracturing, a technique used in the natural gas drilling process.
The problem with fracking isn’t that it’s particularly new or dangerous. The methodology has been in use for decades, and it is as safe as other drilling processes. The real problem is that it could produce relatively cheap hydrocarbon energy for a very long time, and that’s what has environmentalists worried.
So it is: Natural gas just might be the energy solution environmentalists say they want, but actually can’t stand because nothing would put them out of business faster. Forbes blogger Chris Helman words it perfectly:
We would have thought that the Times would be in favor of plentiful, low-cost natural gas. It burns a lot cleaner than coal, and with nuclear off the table for now, gas is poised to fuel U.S. economic growth for more than a generation to come. I can only guess that the problem, as the Times sees it, is that as long as we have all that cheap gas, there’s precious little need for solar panels, windmills and other cornerstones of their much-heralded but slow evolving green jobs revolution.
Forbes, on the other hand, thinks it’s pretty awesome that thanks to drilling ingenuity the U.S. has proven to have one of the world’s biggest and cheapest hoards of clean-burning gas. Now that’s a story.
And to think I posted that very thought about two weeks ago.

Eight (8) New Permits -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

Daily activity report, June 29 2011 --

Operators: QEP (3), Murex (2), Whiting, CLR, and Zenergy

Fields: Deep Water Creek Bay, Sanish, Brooklyn, Lonesome, McGregor, and Painted Woods

QEP will be putting three wells on one pad in Deep Water Creek Bay; Whiting has another permit in its cash, the Sanish.

CLR must like Brooklyn.

The two Murex wells are in different fields.

Bonuses for Leases in the Bakken -- North Dakota, USA

I continue to see a lot of folks searching for "bonuses for leases" in North Dakota.

A reminder: one can easily find bonuses that are being paid for state leases at this site: North Dakota State Lease Auction History (just select the month/year) and submit.

Obviously these bonuses will vary from what is being paid to private individuals. That information is much harder to come by (and not always reliable). One source is the Bakken Shale Discussion Group linked on the sidebar at the right.

Of course, mergers and buyouts of larger leaseholders also provides some idea of bonuses paid, and I post them as stand-alone posts when information becomes available.

A Nice OXY USA Well in Fayette Field -- 22K Bbls The First Month -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

I've updated the IPs of a few wells that OXY USA acquired when it purchased Anschutz over a year ago.

When you get to that site, nothing has changed, except I've added the IPs (in red as usual). One exception: file # 19710, Alina Tormaschy 1-32-29H-143-96, in the very exciting Fayette field, has not yet reported an IP, but first month's oil runs (April, 2011) was an astounding 22,072 bbls of oil (it does not say how many days in April the oil flowed, but I assume with that kind of number, it was the full month).

The Permitorium Continues -- Slow Rolling The Industry Through The Courts

Update

June 29, 2011: Just in -- judge rules in favor of the oil industry.
A judge has ruled that the Interior Department must abide by a deadline in the Mineral Leasing Act to either issue or deny oil and gas leases within 60 days of selling them at auction.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled from the bench Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by the Western Energy Alliance.
It would be just like the administration to appeal.

Original Post
Link here.
A petroleum industry group and the federal government are scheduled to square off in court Wednesday over delayed oil and gas leases in Wyoming and other states.

The Western Energy Alliance sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year over hundreds of oil and gas leases the government sold but had yet to issue to the companies that bought them.
Elsewhere Mr Salazar has promised to speed up the process.

As someone once commented on this site: "Anyone can make a speech."

North Dakota's Legacy Fund -- A Big "Thank You" to The Oil Industry -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA

Link here.
State legislators and other officials met Tuesday to discuss how to invest the money in the newly created Legacy Fund.

The fund, approved as part of a voter initiative in 2010, sets aside 30 percent of oil production and extraction taxes in a separate fund untouchable by state legislators until 2017. After that, it will take a two-thirds vote to spend from the fund.

Money will be deposited in the Legacy Fund beginning in September. According to information from the state treasurer’s office, it is projected to collect roughly $295 million in its first year. About $293 million is expected the following year.
In round numbers, $300 million/year. 

The "key phrase" in this article: "30 percent."  This represents only 30 percent of the total tax the state is taking in each year from the oil industry. And that's the "direct amount." Much more is collected from indirect taxes, including property tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, and personal income tax. Not to mention road taxes on trucks, but one can argue those fees don't cover the cost of the impact to roads and bridges.

TechTicker: Three Reasons Why $100 Oil Is Here To Stay

Link here.

Nothing new for those who follow the oil industry.

The three reasons: a) weakness of US dollar; b) demand in emerging nations; and, c) oil in politically unstable regions of the world. (I guess that includes the US which has no energy policy except to stop drilling.)

News, Updates, and Comments on the SPR

Update

July 22, 2011: I guess I was wrong. It wasn't about the price at all. Oil is hitting $100 today, and IEA says it won't release more oil from the global strategic reserves. CNBC talking head says regardless of what IEA does, price of oil will come down: Brent oil will drop back to $85 by the end of the year (due to sluggish demand and skittishness caused by debt crisis in the euro-zone, and a stronger dollar).

July 21, 2011: Price of oil will come close to hitting $100 today.

July 15, 2011: IEA releases statement on the status of oil markets post-release, and rationale for the release.

July 5, 2011: Bidders and bids for oil to be released from the US SPR. Data available on July 1, 2011; I did not see it until today. It appears refiners need the light oil, and two banks are "speculating," as well as the world's largest private commodity trader. Wow, it must gall some folks to see these "speculators" buying up oil that was meant to be held for emergencies. Quoting a famous line in Casablanca: I'm shocked! I'm shocked!" Elsewhere others suggest the IEA could dip into emergency reserves periodically in an attempt to stem price increases.

July 5, 2011: New data points on the SPR release, as well as comments. At 4:18 EDT, I see oil was up $2.08 from the previous close. This is the first trading day of the second week following the announcement of the SPR release.

July 5, 2011: Now it's an AP story -- "Oil Climbs Above $97."
Some major investment banks are still betting that oil prices will grow next year despite an emergency injection of crude on world markets from the U.S. and other countries.

Benchmark crude rose as high as $97.48 per barrel Tuesday after Barclays Capital raised its price forecast for 2012. And Goldman Sachs said the International Energy Agency's decision at the end of June to release 60 million barrels of oil from its reserves won't cool off prices as much as originally thought.

Independent oil analysts say prices still could head lower this year. But some think IEA's announcement speaks volumes about its expectations for world oil supplies.

"I think it's an admission from them that Saudi Arabia might not be able to produce enough oil on its own" to meet increased world demand, analyst Stephen Schork said.
July 5, 2011: Price of WTI oil continues to rise, almost up another $2.00 today; up to $96.78 (up $1.84). Last week, folks suggested the price of oil would come down as the released SPR oil made its way through the system. I assume this has to do with two things: a) Barron's article over the weekend that suggested oil at $150 by next spring; and, b) the front page story in the LA Times suggesting no easy end to the Libyan "event.' Back on March 18, the president said "Libya" would last days, not weeks. Well, now we are into months.

June 29, 2011: Dayton, Ohio -- gasoline up 20 cents in one day. Isn't Ohio one of those important presidential election states? Fortunately we opened the strategic reserve last week.  

June 29, 2011: AP -- "Oil Rebound Weakens Effect of Oil Release" -- will, doh!
The sway that non-OPEC governments had over oil and gasoline prices petered out in less than a week.

Benchmark crude hit $95.21 per barrel Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Over two days, oil has recovered the loss from last Thursday when the U.S. and other oil-importing countries said they'd dump emergency oil supplies onto the market.

Brent crude, which is used to price many international oil varieties, also rebounded. Although at $111.95 per barrel, it's still about 2 percent below where it was last week.

The swift rebound in oil means that motorists won't see as big of a discount at the gas pump as expected. By Wednesday afternoon, gasoline futures recovered about 20 of the 26 cents per gallon that were lost after the International Energy Agency, which includes the U.S., said it would make 60 million barrels of crude and other fuels available this summer.
My hunch: this is just the beginning of the releases from the strategic petroleum reserves -- anything to disrupt the oil industry. 

June 29, 2011: Of course, this link will change -- it is a dynamic site -- but the Drudge Report headline and graph, with oil up almost $5.00 in past two days: "Superspike: Oil Soars Despite Obama Release of Reserves."

Timeline: Price of Oil Higher Than Before The Announcement

Lest we forget:
  • June 23, 2011, moments before the announcement: $94.30
  • June 23, 2011, low: $89.90
  • June 24, 2011, close: $90.85
  • Weekend
  • June 27, 2011, close: $90.89
  • June 28, 2011, high: $93.35
  • June 29, 2011, high: $95.63
  • July 2 - 4, 2011, holiday weekend
  • July 5, 2011, first day of second week since announcement: up $2.08 to $96.98 (high for the day?)
  • July 7, 2011, bulls run: up over $2.00 hitting an intra-day high of $99.27 
  • July 15, 2011: some volatility; up $1.44 today; $97.13 
  • July 19, 2011: oil up 2%; near $98
  • July 21, 2011: spike again; intra-day high - $100.19
  • July 26, 2011: firmly above $100
Most memorable comment sent to me on June 24, 2011: this will move the speculators to the sideline and oil will fall below $80. And it still might.

Original Post

Coming just days after the announcement that 17 hours worth of global oil consumption will be released from strategic petroleum reserves around the world, the price of oil is almost back to where it was before the announcement.

Who woulda thought?

Up $1.76 to about $95 at 7:55 PDT, June 29, 2011.

And that's on top of the $2.00 pop yesterday.

Where is Saudi on this?

I know this has nothing to do with supply and demand; it all has to do with the strength (or weakness) of the dollar. But having said that, one wonders if folks suddenly realized that yes, 60 million barrels represents only 17 hours of global consumption. By the way, I've seen no stories yet that suggest any American oil company or refinery has requested any light oil from "our" strategic petroleum reserve.

My hunch is that 17 hours won't be enough to meet European summer driving demand and non-US governments will silently release even more, assuming they have more to release.  Unless, of course, everything's back to normal in Libya by this time next week.

EID

One nice thing about THE New York Times article, it gave me a new website to follow and to link (at the bottom of the sidebar on the right, under "external links").

Link here.

This is where I would start. It turns out the author of that story is an editorial writer who has an agenda to kill the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania based on comments at that link. The Times has exceptionally good writing, and I really enjoy the newspaper, but one has to remember their op-ed page is not on the inside like most newspapers. The New York Times op-ed page is their front page.

A big "thank you" to Mike for alerting me to the site.

Again, a reminder: my "natural gas" notes are on a separate NG page.

A Plug For Women Engineers and My Alma Mater -- Nothing To Do With The Bakken

Debra L. Reed has been appointed the new CEO for Sempra Energy.

Link here.
Since April 2010, Reed has served as the executive vice president of Sempra Energy, and previously she served as the president and CEO of Sandiego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Co., the company's regulated California utilities.

After joining SoCalGas in 1978 as an energy systems engineer, Reed became the first female officer appointed at the company in 1988.

Reed serves on the board of directors for Halliburton Co. and Avery Dennison Corp. She has also served as a board member of the American Gas Association, Genentech and Dominguez Services Corp.

Reed graduated summa cum laude from the University of Southern California with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. (Not just cum laude or magna cum laude, but SUMMA cum laude.)
SRE is near its 52-week high and pays 3.70 percent.

Disaster(s) Waiting To Happen -- E15

Updates
July 8, 2011: Witnesses tell House panel E15 may be a mistake.

July 6, 2011: I posted the original link last month, and it looks like I was right on target. GM is not happy with E15 .... not only that, the company, referred to as "Obama Motors" or "Government Motors" was the only major automaker that had not responded to Congressional queries on automakers' position on E15 (which probably doesn't surprise folks).
General Motors Co. caught flak Tuesday from [Congress] for not replying to his questions about the potential problems of allowing more ethanol in regular gasoline ahead of a House subcommittee hearing Thursday.

On Wednesday, GM issued its response – and made clear it’s not happy with the Obama administration’s effort to promote so-called E15, which is 15% ethanol.

GM , in a letter dated Wednesday, joined other major auto makers in warning that using E15 in pre-2001 cars that weren’t designed for it could cause engine or fuel system damage that wouldn’t be covered by the vehicle’s warranty.
The Wall Street Journal article goes on to say that automakers are also concerned about the lack of safeguards at the pump where E15 would be dispensed next to E10 and ethanol-free gasoline. 


Original Post

Link here.
The EPA has finalized the requirements for pump labels on E15 which contain more than 10 and up to 15 percent ethanol, in an effort to ensure that the gasoline blend is properly labeled and used once it enters the marketplace.

The label is orange and black and must be present on fuel pumps that dispense E15, containing information about which vehicles can use the gasoline blend. The label will include a warning to motorists with cars older than 2001 and to those that drive motorcycles and watercraft or that are purchasing gasoline for lawnmowers or chainsaws.
My hunch is that no one in his or her right mind will use E15 for anything. If it's not safe for most vehicles, and all boats, and small motors, already on the road, is the average guy going to trust it in his 2012 Lexus?  Wait for the lawsuits. It will be interesting if retail service stations will even offer it a year from now.

It's going to have to be really, really inexpensive compared to non-E15 to even stand a chance. I won't touch it.