Monday, November 13, 2017

Monday, November 13, 2017

Note: a Whiting Obrigewitch well was reported today (see IP below). I track the Whiting Obrigewitch wells here

Wells Reporting Today

Monday, November 13, 2017: 24 for the month; 61 for the quarter
  • None.
Sunday, November 12, 2017: 24 for the month; 61 for the quarter
  • 32999, SI/NC, Crescent Point Energy, CPEUSC Dressler 7-36-25-158N-100W TFH
  • 29070, SI/NC, BR, CCU Audubon 31-27TFH, Corral Creek,
Saturday, November 11, 2017: 22 for the month; 59 for the quarter
  • 33127, 1,945, Hess, SC-1WX-152-99-0809H-6, Banks, 44 stages; 8.4 million lbs, t10/17; cum --
  • 31464, 1,722, HRC, Fort Berthold 148-94-36C-25-8H, McGregory Buttes, 33 stages; 5 million lbs; t7/17; cum 59K 9/17;
  • 30640, 457, Whiting, Obrigewitch 44-8PHU, Bell, 4 sections, 45 stages, 5.1 million lbs, t6/17; cum 55K 9/17;
  • 29069, SI/NC, BR, CCU Audubon 21-27MBH, Corral Creek,
Friday, November 10, 2017: 18 for the month; 55 for the quarter (will be reported Monday; NDIC closed Friday for Veterans Day)
  • 33128, 1,995, Hess, SC-1WX-152-99-0809H-6, Banks, 45 stages; 8.4 million lbs, t10/17; cum --
  • 29134, 1,976, HRC, Fort Berthold 148-94-36C-25-12H, McGregory Buttes, 33 stages; 5 million lbs, t5/17; cum 110K 9/17;
  • 29068, SI/NC, BR, CCU Boxcar 34-22TFH, Corral Creek,
Active rigs:

Active Rigs523864188182

RBN Energy: crude export growth and gulf coast infrastructure needs.
Since the ban on exports of U.S. crude oil was lifted in December 2015, export volumes have soared, and for the week ending October 27, 2017, they surpassed 2 million barrels/day (MMb/d) for the first time ever, according to Energy Information Administration (EIA) statistics.
And while exports slowed last week, it is clear that there’s more to come. But the pace of export growth depends on many things, including the ability of Gulf Coast infrastructure to receive and store increasing volumes of West Texas Intermediate (WTI),
SCOOP/STACK, Bakken and other crudes and load it onto ships — the bigger the ship the better. Fortunately, coastal Texas and Louisiana already had extensive crude-related infrastructure in place when the export ban ended just under two years ago, and elements of that have been repurposed to handle exports. Will it be enough? Today, we begin a new blog series on existing and planned storage facilities and marine terminals targeted to support rising U.S. crude oil exports.
In response to the 1973-74 oil crisis, the U.S. government in 1975 implemented a ban on the export of most U.S.-sourced crude oil — the only exceptions being oil from Alaska, oil exported to Canada, heavy oil from California and very limited trades with Mexico.
Crude exports already had been minimal (only a few thousand barrels/day, on average) when the ban was put in place — in fact, exports actually rose in the late 1970s as Alaska North Slope (ANS) production kicked in (exports peaked, for the time, at 287 Mb/d in 1980). By the early 2000s, though, ANS was on the decline and crude exports amounted to a drop in the bucket, averaging less than 30 Mb/d. With the Shale Revolution, U.S. production of crude oil (including condensate — the ultra-light crude produced in a number of tight-oil plays) started rising, and by 2014, U.S. producers provided most of U.S. refiners’ need for lighter grades of oil, reducing the need for imported light crude in the process. (The increasing availability of heavy western Canadian crude to U.S. refiners also trimmed the need for overseas imports of heavier crude.) As U.S. production continued to rise, stockpiles of lighter crudes built up and the spread between West Texas Intermediate (WTI; the key benchmark for U.S. light crudes) and international benchmark Brent widened.
Some relief for U.S. producers came in June 2014, when the U.S. Commerce Department broadened its definition of refined products (whose export was never banned) to include condensate that was minimally processed (run through a stabilizer or other unit so it could be called “processed condensate”). Exports of processed condensate took off, peaking in December 2015 (the month the crude export ban was lifted) at more than 150 Mb/d. But processed condensate couldn’t be counted as crude exports — after all, it was processed.
Keeping the scam alive. This is the faux environmentalists plan -- "stay the course for three more years; then elect someone who will ban fracking." I am most curious, did The Washington Post article mention that Germany went back to burning brown coal?
The emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial uses are projected to rise by up to 2 percent in 2017, as well as to rise again in 2018, the scientists told a group of international officials gathered for a United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany.
Despite global economic growth, total emissions held level from 2014 to 2016 at about 36 billion tons per year, stoking hope among many climate change advocates that emissions had reached an all-time high point and would subsequently begin to decline. But that was not to be, the new analysis suggests.
So, did they mention that Germany went back to burning brown coal? Nope.

China is the big problem but the "scientists" put the onus on the US. US emissions have declined since 2008; EU emissions started to flatten out a couple of years ago and there is a suggestion that EU emissions are rising slightly.

Did they mention that Germany has gone back to burning brown coal? Oh, I guess I already asked that.

Wow, isn't this coincidental: in The New Yorker this week, "Can carbon-dioxide removal save the planet? CO2 could soon reach levels that, it's widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe."

And it's not even Earth Day.

Fact check. From the article:
This past April, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached a record four hundred and ten parts per million. 
In fact, it was only 409 ppm. It has since returned to 404 ppm. (Yes, I know, it's seasonal, but The New Yorker didn't mention that either.) 

Question: if CO2 reflects heat back towards the earth, why isn't that same CO2 blocking heat from the sun? By the way, I was not the first to ask that question. Scientists are now asking that question. Th "greenhouse" analogy does not work. I digress.

 It's all about the money, it's not about saving the planet. From the article:
“If we’re successful at building a business around carbon removal, these are trillion-dollar markets,” Corless told me.
Of everything I've read about the Manhattan Project (and I've read a lot about that project), I never got the feeling that it had anything to do with anyone making money. It was about a project that, at that time, was viewed as important as "saving the planet" is viewed today. 

For investors, it's an open-book test.

Update: a few hours after posting the above items regarding CO2 emissions, the EIA posted CO2 emissions from US coal. It will be interesting to see if anyone posts the CO2 emissions from Germany.

On Tap For Today

The college football rankings.

How Dallas did against one of the worst teams in the NFL.

I assume the New England Patriots won again, with or without deflated balls.

No comments:

Post a Comment