Friday, March 1, 2013

Chesapeake To Sell Its Bakken Acreage -- Unconfirmed


April 15, 2013: there is still no confirmation that CHK has sold its Bakken acreage. This PN article from October 7, 2012, provides a bit more data, but still no confirmation. It will be interesting to listen to the 1Q13 earnings conference call which might be April 29, 2013. 
Several calls and emails over the last few weeks to Chesapeake’s media relations folks about the status of the company’s Williston Basin, yielded a single response: “We are not operating any drilling rigs in the Bakken.”
What we do know is this: Although the company has been aggressively selling assets elsewhere, there has been no announcement about it putting its Williston Basin 400,000 to 500,000 net acres up for sale. (The numbers come from 2012 presentations made by Aubrey K. McClendon, Chesapeake’s chief executive officer.)  
March 6, 2013: with no confirmation of the story that ran March 1, 2013, one starts to wonder about its veracity. However, this Bloomberg story might a) put it in perspective; and, b) explain what might be going on. 

March 4, 2013: the original story was posted late Friday night, March 1, 2013. Three days later no news anywhere in "mainstream media." In addition there are no comments at PowerPlay which, at least to me, calls all this into question.  It almost sounds like someone overheard some discussion somewhere suggesting a deal was done but in fact it was just that: a discussion. Time will tell. It's such a big story, I would think the original source would post an update, even to say "no news."

Original Post

Link here to Jay F. Marks/PowerPlay, getting information from

Jay is reporting that CHK is selling its entire 427,000-acre Bakken prospect. If the report is accurate, my hunch is that we will be seeing Sinopec in North Dakota. Wow, with Chinese ceramics, it all fits, doesn't it?

SeekingAlpha mentioned Chesapeake and the Bakken in January, 2013, but no mention of possible sale. 

The story is not yet verified, but it would not be a bit surprising for CHK to sell its Bakken assets.

From MarketWatch, February 25, 2013:
Nonetheless, it (the Mississippi Lime/Sinopec deal) could prove a tough act to follow. The remaining $3 billion to $6 billion in Chesapeake’s asset sale program will have to be raised from the sale of mostly undeveloped acreage, analysts at UBS said in a note to clients Monday. 
Petroleum News had a nice report on this subject back in October, 2012.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations: 427,000 acres x $5,000/acre = $2 billion. Would Sinopec or anyone buy Bakken acreage outside the core area for a premium ($10,000/acre would net $4 billion)?

No New Poll; Just Results of Current Poll; Seven Companies Drill 65% of Bakken Wells

Current poll: will the president sign the sequester order by 11:59 tonight?
  • Yes: 36%
  • No: 64%
I thought I heard a few minutes ago that the president signed the sequester order. Whether he actually signed it or not, all indications are that it is now the law of the land.

I was in the "no" group: I did not expect the sequester order would be signed by the deadline. I thought "they" would find some way to extend the deadline a few more days to give everyone a bit more time to see if something could be worked out.

The next government budget / deficit / spending crisis: the debt ceiling which I believe will necessitate action by the end of the month.

I don't have a new poll.


These seven companies drill 65% of Bakken wells according to Lynn Helms, as quoted in Petroleum News, October 7, 2012: In order from largest to smallest producer, the seven companies are: 
  • Continental Resources
  • Hess
  • Whiting Petroleum
  • Statoil/Brigham
  • Oasis Petroleum
  • Marathon
  • EOG Resources
Interesting to see Oasis drilling more wells than EOG.

Germany Debates Fracking -- Energy Costs Accelerating; Merkel's "Energy Revolution" -- Back To Coal

Yesterday it was noted that Great Britain has approved fracking in light of decreasing oil output and increasing energy costs.

Now, Germany. Rigzone is reporting:
In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel abruptly declared that Germany would abandon nuclear power and transition to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. As the use of nuclear power declines, Germany is filling the gap with a combination of renewable energy and coal-fired plants.
Yet Ms. Merkel's "energy revolution," as the shift away from nuclear has been dubbed, is having unexpected side effects.
Subsidies for renewable-energy producers that are financed in part through household electricity bills are causing electricity prices for ordinary consumers and industry to rise. Germany's biggest industrial power consumers have seen electricity prices per kilowatt hour rise nearly 40% in the past five years ... Electricity prices for industry are nearly 15% higher than the average in the 27-nation European Union, IW said.
He added that data show that energy-intensive industries are already beginning to curtail investment in Germany because of higher electricity charges.
And it gets worse --
  • CO2 emissions are rising
Long a leader in cutting CO2 emissions, Germany's emissions rose 1.6% last year, according to the Environment Ministry, the first rise in years. [Emissions in the US have declined; Germany signed the Kyoto Protocol, after France, and before Greece; the US did not sign the protocol.]
And then this:
So far, Ms. Merkel has sided with her wary public, expressing doubts about the viability of fracking in Germany and pledging to allow it only if it can be proven entirely safe. Ms. Merkel is trying to please the broader public, which surveys show is frightened by fracking, while not alienating industry, which is lobbying the government to do something about Germany's soaring energy costs.
"...entirely safe." -- wow.

In 2020, Germany will shut down about six nuclear power stations and many of the country's coal-fired power plants will also shut down due to age. -- another "wow."

Fracking in the Utica

A couple days ago "Anon 1" recommended listening to a Gulfport Energy webcast concerning their "Darla" wells in the Utica.

It's a long webcast, but fortunately a reporter posted a story -- the short version, as it were: is reporting.

Some data points, first about Gulfport and the Utica:
  • Ohio Dept of Natural of Resources estimates: 1.3 to 5.5 billions of of oil (NDIC's estimate of the Bakken: 6 billion bbls of oil); 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 
  • Gulfport owns rights to drill on 128,000 acres in Ohio
  • Gulfport's first 10 Utica wells averaged 3,630 boepd
  • Gulfport will accelerate their 2013 drilling program in Utica; drilling as many as 50 gross wells
  • capex about $500 million
Now, Gulfport's drilling plan:
will be experimenting with different drilling and fracking methods
will drill two wells per location at most sites
five to seven months from spud to first sale
Gulfport's Darla wells:
just north of the company's strong-producing Wagner wells in Ohio's Harrison County
will drill three (3) wells instead of two (2)
will experiment with pattern of horizontal drilling; kinds of materials used;
the company will use radioactive markers to trace the wells
will also use fiber optic sensors; cost: $600,000/well for this technology
The SeekingAlpha 4Q12 earnings transcript, particularly the Q & A, provides additional background. It sounds a lot like the Bakken, including the cost per well ($10 million). For investors: think sand and ceramics.  There is a fair amount of discussion regarding diluent for Canadian sands heavy oil.


Sometimes it takes a reminder from someone to go back and read something I either missed in the first place, or posted, but didn't take time to read the first around.

This goes for ethane. "Anon 1" caught one of my errors earlier today and recommended that I go back and look at the August 5, 2012, RBN article on ethane. And I did. I will probably have to read it again, but I feel a bit more comfortable with the subject. My hunch is I will still make mistakes when I post articles about natural gas, natural gas liquids, and liquified natural gas so be careful when reading what I post. That's why I try to always link the original source -- so folks can check / confirm for themselves. As I say on my welcome/disclaimer page: if something at this site looks wrong, it probably is. But it is generally easy to check.

But I digress. Back to ethane. For newbies, at the link above, an outstanding article on ethane.

Keystone Update


March 3, 2013: I can't recall if I posted a link to the March 1, 2013, WSJ story about the State Department's draft review of Keystone XL 2.0. The general consensus, it seems, that it was a slam dunk -- the State Department's assessment gave the president the "green light." However, that's not how the WSJ/CanadaRealTime is seeing it. Here's the headline:
State Dept. Environmental Review Doesn’t Reach Firm Conclusions on Keystone XL – Official  
From the story:
A State Department official said Friday that the department’s review of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t reach any firm conclusions about the environmental impact of the pipeline.
Kerri-Ann Jones of the State Department was speaking after the release of a lengthy draft environmental review of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to the U.S.
In one possible favorable sign for project supporters, the draft assessment said that building the pipeline would not “significantly” impact the further development of Canada’s tar sands or U.S. demands for heavy oil. Environmentalists have attacked the project because, they say, further tar sands development would be economically challenging without a pipeline.
For the past several days, I have interpreted all the stories coming out of the State Department as trial balloons and a prelude to the president's approval of the Keystone. However, this certainly should be less than reassuring to the Canadians. The story continues:
The Obama administration likely will not make a final decision on the pipeline until this summer at the earliest. The State Department said the preliminary environmental review would be subject to 45 days of public comment, and it said it wouldn’t issue conclusions now.
“We’ re not going to come out and make those conclusions at this point, until we engage with the public and really get some feedback. We have found that there are in some cases impacts, in some cases those impacts can be mitigated,” Ms. Jones said. She called for a “fuller public debate before we move forward.”
For all practical purposes, we are no further along than we were five years ago. The State Department's bottom line: a) this was just a draft study; b) public comment necessary; c) SecState Kerry needs to review; d) and, "fuller public debate before we move forward." Some might interpret that to mean Congressional hearings. 

March 2, 2013: and still another story foreshadowing President Obama approving the Keystone XL; this one a Bloomberg article. Pretty much just a re-write of other stories linked below.

Original Post

The tea leaves .... that's all one can do ... read the tea leaves ...

Here's the latest cup:
The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama's desk for final consideration.
The comments at the linked article are as good as, maybe better than, the article itself.

Okay, back to the tea leaves.

The opening sentence certainly suggests which way the administration is leaning (or which way the writer thinks the administration is leaning): " moved one step closer to approval...."

It has all the markings of a trial balloon, "... concluding in a draft EIS that the project....." was environmentally neutral. And then again, "...has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama's desk for final consideration." 

Reminder, from an earlier post: a Billings Gazette story that Nebraska won't get the power lines in place for the Keystone XL before the end of 2015.
A Nebraska utility says the new route for a proposed oil pipeline that would carry Canadian crude oil through the state will delay work on electric transmission lines for the pipeline.
Nebraska Public Power District officials said they won't be able to build the transmission lines by the deadline TransCanada set for the end of 2014.
NPPD Chief Operating Officer Tom Kent said there's no way the transmission lines will be ready by 2015.
And I doubt the administration will stay up late at night thinking of ways to expedite the project.

About That 75% Tax Rate on High Earners In France

I never understood the issue (despite it sounding so simple: 75% tax on millionaires) and never knew the specifics. This most recent Financial Times article succinctly wraps it up; maybe past stories did so, also, and I simply failed to read them.

Be that as it may, here are the data points:
  • the new French president stuck to his manifesto: 75% tax on individuals with incomes greater than one million euros
  • the French "Supreme Court" struck down the law just before it was to go into effect because historically, rates were based on "household" income, not "individual" income (think marriage tax in reverse: a married couple both earning 750,000 euros were below the threshold; an individual earning 1.5 million euros was above it) 
  • the old law affected about 1,000 individuals
  • just changing the wording to "households" earning more than one million euros would affect more than 10,000 people; and the French president can't accept that
Somehow there seems to be a bit of irony in all that. It's okay in France to capriciously and arbitrarily dun 1,000 people but not 10,000 people.

The easy answer, it seems, is moving the threshhold to two million euros for households, but then the "bachelors" / "bachelorettes" and widows / widowers get away with a huge tax advantage over their married millionaire neighbors.

And so it goes. Something to think about, 45 days before our own "April 15th."

Seven (7) New Permits -- The Williston Basin, North Dakota, USA

Active rigs: 183 (steady)

Seven (7) new permits --
  • Operators: Marathon (4), Fidelity (2), Hunt
  • Fields: Dickinson (Stark), Reunion Bay (Mountrail)
  • Comment: Hunt has a permit for a wildcat in Divide County
    Comment: in addition, KOG has a permit for a salt water disposal well; the location of that SWD is in Truax field where KOG has 3 rigs working;
Wells that came off the confidential list today were posted earlier; see sidebar at the right.

Sand Mining Surges In Wisconsin

I posted this a long time ago; put it in draft, hoping to come back to it later. Never did. So here it is, just the link.

COP To Divest Some LNG Assets, Some Canadian Oil Sands

Being reported in the Oil & Gas Journal.

I understand the decision to sell some LNG assets. Selling some Canadian oil sands is more difficult to understand, perhaps. I assume the Nebraska utility folks announcing the Keystone XL wouldn't be on-line before the end of 2015 even if the project was approved this month made the decision easier.

From the linked article:
ConocoPhillips is planning to sell some of its interest in the Australia Pacific LNG project and in the Canadian oil sands in a strategy to devote more cash to US shale plays, ConocoPhilips Chief Executive Ryan Lance said during a Feb. 28 investor and analyst meeting.
Previously, ConocoPhillips announced plans to divest billions of dollars worth of assets as it rebalances its inventory to focus on fast-growing US projects. ConocoPhillips also previously said it likely would sell some oil sands assets.

The Canadian oil sands are part of the upstream assets for ConocoPhillips, which currently is focusing on growing its unconventional oil production from the South Texas Eagle Ford shale and the North Dakota Bakken formation.

Enquiring Minds Want To Know: Page 4

Click here for page 1

June 15, 2013: an enquiring mind wonders why the production numbers for four (4) wells didn't show up on the NDIC April production report. I have no idea what he/she is talking about; those wells show on my copy of the NDIC April production report. It also appears, based on other threads at the site, some folks are unaware of the staggering infill program that has begun in the Bakken. Some are aware of the program, but some are unaware of it.

June 13, 2013: enquiring minds are struggling with the definition of "increased density." It is a natural progression from wildcat to drilling out established oil fields. The definition can be found in multiple locations but even this site has the definition; it is simply another name for "infill" well. There are so many story lines here but I won't get into them. Too many inconvenient truths. This is one.

June 12, 2013: in this thread, an enquiring mind is asking for location of the wildcat mentioned at the very beginning of the thread. I assume they are talking about a wildcat well on the confidential list that is about 25 miles southeast of Minot:
June 11, 2013: An enquiring mind says Lynn Helms has suggested 48 wells/1280-acre spacing unit. If that's an accurate quote, two comments: a) not likely the norm for the Bakken; and/or b) by the time they get to that many wells/spacing unit, they will be moving to EOR. I am unaware that Lynn Helms actually said that, and I have not been able to find a link. Elwood provided the link: This would be in the "better Bakken" and a) it would not be the norm; and, b) in general, everything Helms has said has been pretty much come to pass, just as most of what Harold Hamm has said has come to pass. [One day later: expected as much -- interesting to see how one rant shuts down the discussion group.]

June 11, 2013: This might be interesting to follow -- a series of OXY USA wells in Manning oil field. [One day later: "or not."]

May 30, 2013: an enquiring mind wants to know the permit numbers for the eight wells that Surge is cancelling. They are listed here That was easy.

May 8, 2013: I always enjoy these little bits of cocktail chatter. It helps one understand the Bakken. An enquiring mind is asking if anyone knows whether the horizontals will run north or south with regard to #25328 and #25329. It is said that "25329" is not shown on the map; in fact it is, if one zooms in. Based on how far they are set back from the section line, my hunch is both will run south. If they were going to run north, they would have been sited closer to the section line. That's my hunch. For what it's worth.  However, the name of the wells provide the answer. Both #25328 and #25329 are "Tuhy" wells, which means both horizontals will run south; if they ran north, they would be named State Lazorenko wells. #16451, a Gerald Tuhy, well is in the same section as #25238 and 25329, and Gerald Tuhy runs south.

May 4, 2013: enquiring minds are not yet talking about the 23 cases in this month's NDIC hearing dockets in which the oil industry is assessing risk penalties against non-participating owners; the results (which won't be broadly accessible) will be interesting.

April 15, 2013: It looks like one enquiring mind is about to be voted off her own island. Unless I'm missing something, her recent note suggests that she is questioning the authority of the NDIC to allow more than one well per spacing unit. She may be correct. I don't know. Two issues: the code was written for "pools" and conventional reservoirs; and, unintended consequences. I have said many times, those mineral owners with one well in the "very best" Bakken will have at least 12 wells before this is all over; those in the "good" Bakken will have at least 8 wells; and everyone should have a minimum of 2 wells, maybe 4 wells. (My numbers have changed over time as the Bakken experience has changed.) One individual has written me who has two wells and he expects to have at least 24 wells before this is all over. I think we're too far down the road to put the genie back in the bottle, but my hunch is that anyone seriously arguing for only one well per spacing unit in the Bakken will be, as I said, voted off the island. Her other alternative is to win one of the three statewide offices that would make her a member of the NDIC.

April 12, 2013: it looks like following the Bakken Shale Discussion Group is about ready to come to an end for me. I've learned a lot from the site. Teegue is an incredible fund of knowledge. But the contributors are starting to become downright nutty. 

April 11, 2013: scroll down to the April 11, 2013, discussions at this thread to see the folks who are getting ready to sue the Bakken operators are starting to get their facts together regarding fracking. According to the "the enlightened one," fracking has two "faces." I suppose that's possible. I would have assumed the fracking was radial in nature, but perhaps the fracking is designed to frack along two faces. It would be quite a trick. It is interesting that they have stumbled upon the fact that natural fracking extends from "zero" to "infinite" and every point in between. That is absolutely accurate and makes this whole issue very, very problematic. In some areas there may be no natural fracking; in other areas the natural fracking may be so extensive, manmade fracking is hardly needed. Obviously that would affect the size of the spacing units if done "scientifically/geologically." This is going to get very, very interesting, very, very quickly.  

April 5, 2013: It appears enquiring minds are ready to spend their money for lawyers. I've seen this movie before and it's not going to be pretty. Wow, I'm glad I don't hold any mineral rights. There is a recurrent theme at the discussion group that some folks are worried that oil companies are going to hold leases by production and then not drill wells. Not gonna happen. All they have to do is look at the GIS map server and look at the monthly dockets. CLR, OAS, BR, and KOG, just to name a few of the more prominent names are pretty much Bakken-centric and can't quit drilling -- not at these prices. And if the price of oil plummets, mineral rights owners would be better off if the companies waited to drill anyway. Sure, companies with plays elsewhere, like Hess and EOG, might be not as concerned about drilling in the Bakken, but my hunch is that these examples are far and few between. Everything I've read suggests operators are drilling as fast as capex, takeaway capacity, workforce, and environment allow them to drill. Another author who said it much better than I (said it).

April 3, 2013: where's Dufus? Elwood needs to take his comments on Mr Helms over to the water cooler

April 1, 2013: sounds like they need to take this to the water cooler. It sounds like someone doesn't understand the bureaucracy. Maybe we should let the Feds regulate the oil and gas in North Dakota.

April 1, 2013: an enquiring mind has an unfounded worry. But folks could provide him/her a lot of information if he/she provided permit numbers, or legal well names. If folks want information, they have to come at least halfway with information. But to answer his question: he will have at least four more wells if he has one well in the Bakken. And, so, yes, he will see a lot of dime. And $100 bills.

March 31, 2013: someone is as tired of "Wormy" as I am.

March 31, 2013: I see enquiring minds are asking about overlapping 2560-acre spacing units. A quick explanation can be found here I'm sure Dufus will see this as a land grab by the nasty oil companies. And, yes, the individual at his post is missing something.

March 29, 2013: the disparity in the knowledge about the Bakken is incredible. The boom began in 2000 in Montana; in 2007 in North Dakota. I have been posting up to ten (10) Bakken posts daily since 2009; some days more. And still there folks who don't know the basics when it comes to the Bakken. I see some enquiring minds are wondering what "LOC" means when it comes to NDIC oil and gas permits. To the best of my knowledge, "LOC" does NOT mean "site is being prepared." Based on what I've seen, "LOC" means a permit to drill at a specific location has been issued. If "LOC" means a site is being prepared there a lot of sites that seem to take forever to be prepared (#21387 was issued a permit back in April, 2012, and is still "LOC"). In addition, QEP spent a lot of money preparing a site for #18956 for naught; that permit was cancelled if that's what LOC means. 

March 23, 2013: Rufus, I see, can't see beyond her own wells. (same link as an earlier one) What a dufus. The first thing that caught my attention was the the fact that it was likely that the operators in the San Juan Basin were eying Bakken-like shale. Then I noted the potential, about 6 billion bbls, very similar to the USGS estimates for the Bakken. And then this: the more states that embrace fracking, the better it is for all of us. Nothing like "scaring" folks away from "her" discussion group. That was the first time I saw Will at the discussion group; what a nice welcome from Rufus.

March 20, 2013: with the NDIC site now down for five days, I see that folks at the Bakken Shale Discussion Group are starting to post stories about the very interesting, highly prolific, much talked-about San Juan Basin in New Mexico. 

March 9, 2013: well pad surface rates.

March 1, 2013: very, very reliable source providing very, very interesting information. See Z-Man's input at this thread; looking for time-date stamp of 11:51 a.m., March 1: 
Re: the Polar - they're doing a 6 middle Bakken, 6 Three Forks pilot there (3 in the upper bench, 3 in the 2nd bench), wells 800 feet apart and in the TFS, 50' apart vertically ... testing communication on a bit bigger scale than they have in the past. Results by year end.
Over two years ago, one can find posts suggesting that the effectiveness of fracks in the Bakken suggested 500-foot separation. They're getting closer.

These are probably the wells Z-Man is referring to; this was taken from a post dated December 14, 2012:
With regard to the eight new KOG permits: all eight are in the same section - 27-154-98. There are already three other wells in this section, all on confidential status, which means that there will be eleven (11) wells sited in this section. So, these are the permits for this section:
  • 24374, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H, Truax,
  • 24375, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H3, Truax,
  • 24376, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-15H, Truax,
  • 24604, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13HB, Truax,
  • 24605, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13H3, Truax,
  • 24606, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-13HA, Truax,
  • 24607, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-4-27-34-14H3, Truax,
  • 24608, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-15H, Truax,
  • 24609, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H3, Truax,
  • 24610, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H, Truax,
  • 24611, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-2-27-34-16H3A, Truax,
In addition to these, add these two:
  • 24649, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-34-14H, Truax, 
  • 24650, conf, KOG, P Wood 154-98-3-27-16-3H, Truax, (running north)

March 1, 2013:  I am eager to see the replies. I do believe this contributor has asked the same question some time ago.



Later, 3:40 pm: AT&T was up today despite the sequester. I assume a lot of furloughed government workers will be using their own data plans to access the internet from home, rather than from work.

Later, 12:59 pm: looks like the market likes what it sees. The market is up after the news: the president will go through with the sequester order, at least based on his rambling press conference. Did anyone understand his answer to the first question? I left before the second question was asked.  At least I know it was the "other side's" entire fault. Something about the "other side" not giving the president a "dime" in revenue. The market is closing in on an all-time high. I've always said the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" will widen under this president.

Disclaimer: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment decisions based on what you read (or think you read) at this blog.

Original Post

A pack of cigarettes in Chicago: nearly $11.00.
Chicago will be adding another dollar to the city cigarette tax. The price of a pack of cigarettes could be near $11 in Chicago, $6.67 of which is city, county and state taxes. Only New  York City -- at $6.86 in taxes -- slaps on higher taxes.
Crisis: US Navy Blue Angels, US Air Force Thunderbirds will be grounded. Actually, close reading of the stories suggest training will continue, but the shows have already been canceled ... and the sequester hasn't even gone into effect yet.  "If the Blue Angels end, it's going to be a sad, sad day for not just us, but for millions of people all over the country." Millions. The story that isn't on the radar yet: if the US can't even manage a 2% cut in discretionary spending, exempting entitlement programs, the debt ceiling that will be reached in the next couple of weeks will be incredible. [Later, 12:57 pm: the Daily Ticker agrees.]

Wells coming off the confidential list have been posted.

RBN Energy: a must-read -- understanding Brent; the first in a series.

Eurozone jobless hits another record; Spain -- 26%.
Unemployment across the 17 European Union countries that use the euro has risen to a record 11.9 percent but inflation has fallen to its lowest level in two and a half years, official figures showed Friday.
Eurostat, the EU's statistics office, said nearly 19 million people are unemployed in the eurozone following an increase of around 200,000 in January. That took the rate up from January's 11.8 percent, the previous record.
The increase was not a particular surprise given that the eurozone economy as a whole is in recession and expected to continue to contract in the first half of 2013.
The sequestration issue in the US puts the Eurozone austerity program into perspective. The US can't even handle a 2% cut in discretionary spending; and, the "cut" completely exempts defense and entitlement spending.

Carpe Diem has a number of superb posts on US energy.

Ten days and counting: Detroit, Michigan


WSJ Links

Section M (Mansion): Did not read

Section D (Arena): later

Section C (Money & Investing):
Section B (Marketplace):
  • Barnes & Nobel's Nook stumbles: this is not a bit surprising; I haven't seen a Nook in ages; Apple and Kindle; our two granddaughters each have a Kindle, and Kindles appear to be a better "tablet" -- dollar for dollar -- than the iPad; at fourth grade and below, they don't need all that iPad power, but by middle school, it will be the iPad; parental controls automatically limit time on the Kindle and the eReaders are always running out of power, they always seem to need recharging. I go for about a week on my iPad before recharging -- about two hours a day. Steve Jobs was serious about batteries. Apparently, the Kindle not so much.
Section A: