Thursday, March 7, 2013

Wells Coming Off Confidential List Thursday; RBN Energy And Another Reason Why Bakken Oil Not Likely To End Up As Keystone Diluent

RBN Energy: why Bakken oil won't be mixed with Keystone bitumen.

21747, 685, Zenergy, Hanson 34-27H, Dublin, t12/12; cum 14K 1/13;
22312, 452, Petro-Hunt, Fort Berthold 148-94-28A-33-1H, McGregory Buttes, t11/12; cum 37K 1/13;
22538, 447, Hess, BW-Kenny 149-101-0904H-1, Sather Lake, t12/12; cum 16K 1/13;
22794, 1,298, BEXP, Scha 33-34 2TFH, Alger, t1/13; cum 10K 1/13;
22987, 718, CLR, Doe 34-23NH, Murphy Creek, t1/12; cum 24K 1/13;
23292, drl, CLR, Topeka 2-12H, Brooklyn, no production data

22312, conf, Petro-Hunt, Fort Berthold 148-94-28A-33-1H, McGregory Buttes:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold

22538, conf, Hess, BW-Kenny 149-101-0904H-1, Sather Lake:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold

22794, conf,BEXP, Scha 33-34 2TFH, Alger:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold

22987, conf, CLR, Doe 34-23NH, Murphy Creek,

DateOil RunsMCF Sold


  1. That RBN Energy article is very interesting. So I take it the diluent Canada needs is a different kind of thing from the oil produced in the Bakken. And they would need it from the get-go to even get flowing on a pipeline, not mixed in once their "material" gets partway down the pipeline to ND. Do I have this correct?

    1. That's exactly how I see it.

      1. They can use Bakken oil as a diluent, but it's not their preferred diluent.

      2. They need to add the diluent at the source -- where it goes into the pipeline in Alberta.

      3. If they use Bakken as a diluent, they would pipe Bakken to Alberta, and add it there.

      At least that's how I see it. I could be wrong (which wouldn't surprise me) but I don't see them adding Bakken oil as a diluent where the ND/MT pipe joins the Keystone at Baker.

      If I am seeing this incorrectly, hopefully someone will write to correct me.