Thursday, July 2, 2015

CO2 Fracking Coming To The Bakken -- July 2, 2015 is reporting:
Utilizing carbon dioxide (CO2) as an energized fracturing fluid is a common practice in Canada. In the United States, however, introducing new methods of enhanced oil recovery and well stimulation usually requires a global oil player to lead the charge.
As reported by Hart Energy’s E&P Magazine, Statoil has a reputation for being open to embracing new and innovative technologies to tackle the big challenges facing the industry. Later this year, Statoil will pursue expanding such innovations and begin stimulation tests on its Bakken acreage using a CO2 enhanced oil recovery method to determine if the process is as promising as its modeling indicates.
According to a Statoil-issued release, the test will be conducted at a well site approximately 15 miles outside of Williston, North Dakota. The trial will evaluate the possible production uplift while reducing the amount of water used in a large, multistage hydraulic fracturing operation. The test will be a step toward the company’s overall goal of increasing the efficiency and sustainability of its unconventional drilling operations in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Marcellus regions.
As a means to increase the chances of success, Statoil has sought out a partner company for its well stimulation program. The CO2 test is one of several projects being pursued under its Powering Collaboration initiative, the technology partnership between Statoil and GE that seeks to accelerate the development of sustainable energy solutions.
“We will use liquid CO2 as the initial fracturing medium because we believe that it will create a more complex fracture network, giving increased surface area, which should increase the ultimate oil recovery,” he said. “Our modeling and laboratory experiments suggest that we could increase recovery by 20% to 25%.
We will then complete the stimulation using a more standard water and proppant pack. By using CO2 for the initial stimulation, we project that we will use 20% to 40% less water than normal in the test phase. Ultimately, as the technology matures, we hope to be able to further reduce water usage in the stimulation process. Providing the test shows positive results, the next phase will be to develop a cost-effective system to capture the CO2 as it flows back and reuse it for stimulating new wells.
This is where the collaboration with GE comes in. Its main part of the project is to use its world-leading engineering and technical expertise to develop this capture and reuse system. We are very excited about this upcoming test phase and subsequent progress of this project, which is one of several exciting new technologies we are developing with GE as part of our Powering Collaboration Initiative,” Tocher said.
Meanwhile, the USGS has just released a study on water and fracking across the US. Link here. The article doesn't say much that we didn't already know. I talked about water and fracking ad nauseum when I first started blogging about the Bakken, and occasionally re-visit the issue. For newbies: water is not an issue for North Dakota.

Note to the Granddaughters

Tonight on the nightly news, there was a story about putting peas in/on guacamole. I told our granddaughters I don't want peas on my guacamole and I don't want pee in my pool.

Our 9-year-old is going to make a sign for their swimming pool at home:

"Welcome to our swimming ool. Note there is no "p" in our ool. We would like to keep it that way. Don't put "p" in our ool."

Twelve (12) New Permits; QEP Getting Ready To Announce Some Huge Wells, Thursday, Part VI -- July 2, 2015

Active rigs:

Active Rigs76190192215172

Twelve (12) new permits --
  • Operators: QEP (7), Hess (4), Resonance
  • Fields: Spotted Horn (McKenzie), Blue Buttes (McKenzie), Alger (Mountrail), Westhope (Bottineau)
  • Comments: QEP has permits for a 7-well pad in Blue Buttes/Spotted Horn; the Hess permits are for a 4-well pad in Alger oil field
One (1) producing well completed:
  • 28779, 1,443, BR, Hammerhead 11-26TFH, Sand Creek, t6/15; cum --
Nine (9) permits canceled:
  • Zavanna canceled five permits, the Labrador permits in Williams County
  • QEP canceled four permits, the Foreman permits in McKenzie County
The Bakken Never Ceases To Amaze Me
The Foreman Well Information Below Will Not Be Updated
All Foreman Well Information Will Be Updated At This Post

Remember: The Atlantic Monthly says the Bakken boom is a bust. Pundits say the US shale operators won't be able to survive. And so what do we have here? QEP cancels a 4-well pad to replace it with a 7-well pad in the heart of the Bakken.

It appears QEP canceled the permits for the 4-well pad in 2-150-95 (Blue Buttes/Spotted Horn) and replaced them with permits for a 7-well pad.

The other wells in that section:
  • 21331, 2,164/IA, QEP, Foreman 5-2/1H, Spotted Horn, 28 stages, 3.4 million lbs;, t1/12; cum 244K 5/14;
  • 29629, see below, QEP, Foreman 6-2-1TH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures;
  • 28968, see below, QEP, Foreman 36-35-1-2LL, Blue Buttes, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures;
  • 28931, see below, QEP, Foreman 1-2-1BH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures;
  • 28932, see below, QEP, Foreman 2-2-1BH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures;
  • 28933, see below, QEP, Foreman 1-2-1TH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures;
From the file report of #21331, mostly paraphrased:
Interestingly enough, this was the first well int this drilling unit, back in 2012, and it targeted the Three Forks, not the middle Bakken. It was noted that Helis had drilled ten Devonian Three Forks double-section lateral wells in 2011. It sounds like the drilling window is about 15 to 35 feet.

All prospective pay zones were sampled, studied, reported.

The middle Bakken member was 33 - 38 feet thick here.

The Pronghorn member: "Recently the North Dakota Geological Survey has reclassified the lower approximate 10 feet of the Lower Bakken as a stratigraphically and lithologically distinct unit. The now referred to as the Pronghorn Member is present in Spotted Horn and surrounding fields... it is approximately 8 feet thick in the Foreman 5-2/1H well. The unit thickness is variable and in some wells the interval has not been observed."

The Three Forks: gas shows were significantly lower in the Foreman 5-2/1H than the Jones, State, and Levang wells; this was unexpected; and "nothing int he lithologic observations can account for the decrease in gas shows." Gas shows of 700 units were common. Gas continually increased during the lateral, with connection gases as high as 3,413 units. Trip gases were flared twice; both flares were 2 - 5 feet in height.

The well was considered a success; landing within 1 foot of the desired target and was drilled for 89% of the lateral within the desired target window and 100% within the desired formation.
In long posts like this there will be factual and typographical errors; I do not have formal training in any of this and may have missed important points. If this information is important to you, go to the source.

Producing Wells Waiting To Be Completed In Area Of Interest
  • 29629, see above, QEP, Foreman 6-2-1TH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures:
DateOil RunsMCF Sold

  • 28968, see above, QEP, Foreman 36-35-1-2LL, Blue Buttes, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures:
    DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 28931, see above, QEP, Foreman 1-2-1BH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures:
    DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 28932, see above, QEP, Foreman 2-2-1BH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures:
    DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 28933, see above, QEP, Foreman 1-2-1TH, Spotted Horn, it's gonna be a good well based on early production figures:
    DateOil RunsMCF Sold

Mired -- July 2, 2015, Part V

In addition to the "disappointing" (don't you just love that adjective?) jobs report today, there is this story, reported by Reuters:
New orders for U.S. factory goods fell more than expected in May on weak demand for transportation and electrical equipment, a sign that manufacturing remained mired in a soft patch.
The Commerce Department said on Thursday new orders for manufactured goods dropped 1.0 percent after a revised 0.7 percent decline in April. Factory orders have dropped in nine of the last 10 months.
So, six years into the Obama Recovery and a gazillion dollars in stimulus, manufacturing is "mired in a soft patch" (don't you just love that verb, "mired"?). [And with zero percent interest rates, free money for manufacturers, if there was an economy.]

There are two story lines -- most folks will just see one. The obvious story line -- a "disappointing" US factory goods report.

Second story line: "mired." This suggests the writer doesn't this see "weak demand" as an anomaly. One doesn't fall into and out of quicksand; one is "mired" (at best).

Definition of "mired": factory orders have dropped in nine of ten months. 


So, What's Wrong With This Picture? -- July 2, 2015; Part IV

Natural gas fill rate: 69 (pretty low). Only 29 Bcf above the 5-year average. If it's a normal winter, everything will be fine. The big story is as fast as the industry produces natural gas, it's all consumed. Americans apparently can't get enough of it, as they switch from coal to natural gas. In the East Region, stocks were 98 Bcf below the 5-year average following net injections of 56 Bcf.

Weekly gasoline demand, link here

I don't think folks are aware of these three data points from the past week:
  • crude oil stores soared this past week despite forecast of a decline as producers cut back
  • refineries are working at near capacity 
  • gasoline storage is dropping like a rock
US producers continue to produce more than expected, refineries are working at full capacity, and gasoline stores are falling like a rock. Interesting, huh? But there's another story line. I'll come back to that later. First the graph on gasoline demand: holy mackerel:

The graph below is slightly more interesting. It appears that not only is gasoline demand increasing (as expected in the summer) but the surge is increasing earlier in the driving season this year. It's subtle but the data tends to support that assertion:

At the link, note also that ethanol production is dropping off very, very slightly, as expected. Folks have had it with ethanol. With motor vehicle fuel usage increasing, all things being equal, ethanol volume should also be increasing but it's decreasing. On top of everything else, I think folks forget that ethanol does not provide as good a mileage (MPG) as gasoline, or so I've been told.

I still think we're going to break a record for gasoline usage this August, 2015. 

I Love This Blog

Flashback!  This was posted back in November, 2014. I still love it (the post). I will have to update it for our current California adventure.

99 Things To Do; Bitchin' Is Not One Of Them

I saw that quote over at the Macrumors discussion board the other day. It's a great quote. I use it every time my wife complains about something trivial.

I thought of that when I went to check NASCAR to see the write-up on the finish of today's race, and saw a headline about "thousands turn out to protest Redskins' name at Minnesota game." My hunch is 99% don't even know what "redskin" refers to  (it's not what you think, at least not what I think you think).

So, let the thousands protest the Redskin's name. I've got 99 other things to do, protesting the Redskins' name is not one of them:
  • buy flowers for my wife -- done
  • pick up photos at Walgreens of our granddaughters -- done
  • read some more of my book on dinosaurs and birds -- done
  • watch Only Lovers Left Alive -- doing
  • follow today's NASCAR race on the internets -- done
  • look at UNP's share price over the past five years -- done
  • study investment opportunities -- doing
  • pour another beverage of my choice -- done
  • plan my trip back to the Bakken -- doing
  • thaw an Omaha Steak wrapped in bacon for dinner -- doing done (ready to grill)
  • blog -- doing
  • delete spam -- doing
  • ride my bike to local sports restaurant to check out NASCAR -- done
  • journal about the loves of my life (three of them; all female; two incredibly sexy; one incredibly beautiful; one incredibly young for being 56 years old)
  • sending photos of our granddaughters to my mom who lives on her own in the Rocky Mountains
  • reply to e-mail from readers
  • pour myself another beverage of my choice -- going to do in a few minutes
  • look at the picture of a whitetail that Don sent me
  • start preparing dinner for my wife and me; she should be home any minute; babysitting new granddaughter
  • continue watching Only Lovers Left Alive -- doing
  • plan agenda for daughter who arrives from Portland Tuesday
  • plan agenda for brother-in-law, his wife, who arrive from California Tuesday
  • watch one or two episodes of Big Bang Theory later tonight while eating dinner
  • watch a bit of Sunday Night Football later tonight
  • watch Lost In Translation at midnight
  • check in on the Broncos-Patriots game -- done (43 - 21; what a debacle)
  • write letter to bicycling friends in California, about cycling fun out here
Almost Forgot

I said this above: But there's another story line. I'll come back to that later. Again, here were the three data points:
  • crude oil stores soared this past week despite forecast of a decline as producers cut back
  • refineries are working at near capacity 
  • gasoline storage is dropping like a rock
Look at that first data point. Pundits forecast that crude oil stores would decline this past week; in fact, crude stores increased (in this environment, one might even say crude oil stores soared). So, what the story line? This: everybody thought US oil industry was dead, could not survive in this pricing environment. I am quite sure that producers are not increasing production to sell oil at a loss. Somehow, the operators are ekeing out a profit. Going down the food chain:
  • owners: maintain their pay; may or may not get their bonuses
  • workers: most will keep their jobs; not all; many will see pay cuts but at least will sill be employed
  • investors: currently disappointed, but there are opportunities going forward

Siemens Looking To $1 Million To Fuel A Single Car -- July 2, 2015; Part III

Top 20 selling cars in the US, most recent reporting period (approximate sales, rounded):
  • Ford F-series P/U, 60,000 (slight drop; working Americans)
  • Chevy Silverado P/U: 50,000 (a pop in sales; working Americans)
  • Toyota Camry: 40,000 (a slight drop; a sign of struggling economy)
  • Ram P/U: 30,000 (no change; working Americans)
  • Toyota Corolla: 30,000 (no change; low end of the market)
  • Nissan Altima: 30,000 (nice pop; maybe a shift from Toyota Camry to Nissan Altima, cost?)
  • Honda Civic: 30,000 (big drop; a shift to newer makes/models; folks getting tired of the Civic?)
  • Honda CR-V: 30,000 (nice pop; cross-over; okay with adequate crude oil supply)
  • Honda Accord: 30,000 (big drop, see Honda Civic)
  • Hyundai Elantra: 25,000 (up 55%; best bang for buck; struggling economy?)
  • Ford Fusion: 25,000 (big drop; see Honda Civic)
  • Toyota RAV4: 25,000 (big jump; see Honda CR-V)
  • Ford Escape: 25,000 (down a bit; less worry about price of gasoline going forward)
  • Nissan Rogue: 20,000 (rising fast; huge jump; what is the Rogue? an all-new cross-over)

Tarantino Soundtrack


This is not a good sign for the EV movement when even The Huffington Post can see through this charade. The HuffPost is reporting:
The idea that gasoline cars might cause less environmental harm than electric vehicles seems impossibly backwards. But consider the following thought experiment before you dismiss it out of hand.
A view from the tailpipe gives EVs a clear edge: no emissions, no pollution, no problem. Shift the view to that of a smokestack, though, and we get a much different picture. The EV that caused no environmental damage on the road during the day still needs to be charged at night. This requires a great deal of electricity generated by a power plant somewhere, and if that power plant runs on coal, it’s not hard to imagine it spewing more emissions from a smokestack than a comparable gas car coughed up from a tailpipe.
So the truth of the matter hinges on perspective—and, it turns out, geography. That’s the sobering lesson from an incredibly sophisticated new working study by a group of economists. Using a fine-grained, county-level measure of U.S. vehicle emissions traced to tailpipes and electricity grids, the researchers mapped where gas cars and EVs cause more respective pollution.
In some places electrics do so much relative harm that instead of being subsidized, as is currently the case, they should actually be taxed.
“What we find is that the benefits are substantially different depending on where you are in the country,” study co-author Stephen Holland of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, tells CityLab. “The real big take-home message is: location, location, location.”
And that's why EVs are called "coal-burning cars." 

Thank Goodness For Comments

When I read a story like this, I need help putting it into perspective. First the story, reported by Reuters:
Siemens will on Thursday start an energy project to convert wind power into hydrogen for re-use as a general fuel or in natural gas pipelines.
Siemens' electrolysis plant in Mainz  (Germany) is based on Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology, which allows the capture and storage of electricity into hydrogen.
It said the plant can process up to 6 megawatts of electricity, making it the biggest PEM installation of its kind worldwide and able to supply 2,000 fuel cell cars.
So, what does this mean? Sounds like they sold the idea for a wind farm to test this technology but in fact are using it for tax credits. Not many fuel cell cars out there yet. 

Fortunately my good friend Andrew provided the perspective:
Interesting tech but how much does this factory cost? Its impossible to evaluate this without knowing the cost of the plant itself.
Great it can process 6 MW of electricity (which isn't very much in the grand scheme of things).
Now if it costs $2 billion then that is $1million per car that it can fuel. That is not a very smart way to spend $2 billion!
Even if the plant gets it down to $200 million that is still $100,000 per car that it can fuel.
Now I have a Prius that is coming up on 200,000 miles and its getting pretty old and worn down. I have averaged 45 mpg over the life of the car. That means I have bought about 4500 gals of gas to fuel that car. At an average cost of $3/g that comes to $13,500 spent on fueling that car over its useful life.
Even at 15mpg like a lot of SUVs get that is still only $40,000 spent on fuel over the life of the car. If we use that as the break even point where this tech starts to make economic sense then the plant can only cost $80 million and ideally should cost considerably less as it also needs to make a profit if it is going to attract the kind of investment it will take to spread this all around the world.
I will grant that its an emerging tech and that always costs more in the early days but unless Siemens has projections that show they could 1) scale this up so that a lot more of these plants could be made and 2) that the costs could get below $80 million per plant then this is just a glorified science project. NEED COST NUMBERS TO KNOW! 
Friends In Low Places, Garth Brooks

Random Update Of EOG Well In The Parshall, #28316 -- July 2, 2015

For newbies like me, this is kind of fun to look at, one of the wells EOG reported today:
  • 28316, 305, EOG, Parshall 147-1608H, Parshall, ICO, 1920-acre proposed, 54 stages, 13 million lbs, t1/15; cum 94K 5/15;
Again, a large number of fracks: 54. Most operators are still reporting 30 to 36 stages, and most operators are still in the 4 million lbs of proppant (sand only, or sand + ceramic). EOG uses only sand.

The ICO means that a case to determine the size of the drilling unit is still before the commission, but I am unaware of (m)any such cases being denied. It looks like the paperwork is yet to catch-up with the scout ticket. In a May 6, 2014, letter, EOG was informed that the permit had been approved for a 1920-acre unit via Commission Order 23511.

In this case, the operator is requesting a 1920-acre drilling  unit, which is an L-shaped unit incorporating three sections:

In this case, the well was sited in section 16 and ran in a northwesterly direction, cutting through the corner of section 17, and ending in section 6-152-90, Parshall oil field.

The application was for a "Three Forks B1" well (which in the "old days" was referred to as the "upper Three Forks"). Also, the "147" designation suggests an "upper Three Forks" well. But the sundry report for the frack suggests it has become a middle Bakken well. Let's check the geologist's report (Neset Consulting Service):
  • spud date: July 27, 2104
  • drilling rig begins: September 11, 2014
  • cease drilling: September 23, 2014
  • total depth (vertical depth + length of horizontal): 20, 298 feet
  • vertical depth: 9,368.02 feet (that 0.02 feet = 0.24 inches) -- pretty fine measuring if you ask me
And there it is, in the first paragraph of the geologic summary: a middle Bakken well. Somewhere along the line -- between submitting the application and drilling, EOG shifted from a Three Forks target to a middle Bakken target. My hunch is that in the current price climate they are going for the best wells and will come back to this unit and drill deeper wells (Three Forks wells) if / when pricing comes back.

As long as we've come this far, let's continue, paraphrasing:
Once into the horizontal, initial gas averaged 400 units; later, gas rose to an average of 668 units and reached a maximum of 2,301 units on connection. Late in the horizontal a shale strike was noted, skimming the Lower Bakken Shale. Gas rose immediately to 4,000 units after the shale strike and the horizontal was brought back into the target window. At the end, gas continued to rise averaging 1,655 units and a maximum of 10,000 units on connection were noted. 
Some operators / geologists provide the distance the horizontal was in the target zone (reported as a percent). I did not see that in this report, but it might be there. I go through them pretty quickly, but I assume this would have been in the 95 - 97% range (percentage of the horizontal in the target zone).

And there it is. A sundry form dated 5/06/14 has the typed "Three Forks" lined out and replaced with inked-in "Bakken."

Note: in a long post like this, there will be factual and typographical errors. Paraphrasing was used. I have no formal training in reading geologist's reports, so interpretations will likely be wrong. The 95 - 97% in the target zone was a WAG; in fact, the horizontal might have been in the target zone 100% of the time. I do these kinds of posts to help me understand the Bakken. If this information is important to you, go to the source.

Condensate: Could There Be A Shortage? Not A Pretty Picture For Splitters Along The Coast; Did They Overbuild? -- RBN Energy, July 2, 2015: Part II

Active rigs:

Active Rigs75190192215172

RBN Energy: Will There be Enough Supply For Gulf Coast Condensate Splitters?
Over 400 Mb/d of Gulf Coast condensate splitter projects could be online by the end of 2016. These splitters will compete for condensate feedstock with local refineries in the Eagle Ford able to process 475 Mb/d of light crude and condensate. Another 700 Mb/d of stabilization capacity in the Eagle Ford could be used to process condensate for export. But with low crude prices stalling production growth, splitter economics could suffer if demand exceeds supply and condensate prices increase as a result. Today we conclude our update on Gulf Coast splitters.
There is no question that processing and distribution of ultra-light crude and natural gas liquids (NGL) materials known as condensate continues to be a focus for midstream infrastructure investment. We have previously provided several explanations of the range of different condensate materials being produced from oil and gas wells in the shale era. 
Earlier this week we looked at plans to move plant condensate (that is extracted from the gas liquids stream by gas processors) from the Ohio Utica to Western Canada as diluent.
This blog series is about splitters that process lease condensate (that condenses into a liquid at the wellhead) at the Gulf Coast. In Episode 1 we described the market for lease condensate from the South Texas Eagle Ford that is too light for most Gulf Coast refiners to process in significant volumes without changes to their configurations. With growing supplies available from the Eagle Ford, one solution is to process condensate in a splitter – a form of simple refinery.  We walked through the list of 7 brand new condensate splitter projects that were proposed to that end between 2012 and 2014 by various midstream companies.
Then in 2014 the rules of the game abruptly changed when the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) clarified decades old export regulations to allow the export of lightly processed condensate.
That caused some splitter projects to be put on hold as producers reevaluated their commitments to these relatively expensive investments versus just stabilizing condensate for export. At the same time the most recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) data suggests that Eagle Ford crude and condensate production could be declining in the wake of lower drilling budgets after the price crash.
In Episode 2 we looked at two new project announcements for condensate processing at Corpus Christi (one of which – from Cheniere - that company has now confirmed will not be a splitter) and reviewed splitter economics showing that while a hypothetical splitter yield would have been more profitable in 2015 than 2014, the margins are much lower than for full refineries and rely on a wide spread between condensate prices and regular crude. This time we look at how the supply demand balance for condensate at the Gulf Coast is likely to impact splitter economics.

Jobless Claims At 5-Week High; Back To The Misery Index; GDP Forecast Continues To Rise -- July 2, 2015; Forecast Way Off -- Part I

Six years into the recovery, and a gazillion dollars in stimulus and this is what we get: even apologists are starting to report reality.

Reuters headline:  Weak U.S. employment report dampens September rate hike hopes.

Business Insider:  Initial jobless claims rise more than expected

Bloomberg Business is reporting: Jobs Report Disappoints, Participation Rate Falls to Lowest Since 1977.

A reminder, these are the "magic numbers":
First time claims, unemployment benefits: 400,000 (> 400,000: economic stagnation)
New jobs: 200,000 (< 200,000 new jobs: economic stagnation)
Economists estimate the labor market needs to create about 125,000 jobs a month to keep the unemployment rate steady, though estimates vary -- Reuters
The original "200,000" was revised downward to "125,000" after President Obama took office. I will stick with 200,000 (the "magic number" prior to the Obama administration) -- it's a nicer, "rounder" number to remember.

So, what do we have today?

First, the Bloomberg Business article:
The U.S. labor market took one step forward and one back in June as job creation advanced while wages stagnated and the size of the labor force receded.
The addition of 223,000 jobs followed a 254,000 increase in the prior month that was less than previously estimate. The jobless rate fell to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent as more people left the workforce.
No one even cares that the unemployment rate dropped to 5.3%. Everyone knows -- the decrease was due to fact that folks have quit looking for work. 

I particularly enjoyed the Business Insider story: never even mentioned that initial claims surged 10,000. Nowhere in the article did the writer say the number surged, simply leading with:
Initial jobless claims rose to 281,000 last week, more than expected.
Economists had estimated that claims for unemployment insurance fell slightly to 270,000 last week, from 271,000 in the prior period.
Folks forecast that initial jobless claims would actually decrease slightly this week. Instead, initial claims surged.

And then the spin:
In a note to clients after the release, Barclays economists wrote: "The four-week moving average of continuing claims now stands at 2.253mn (previous: 2.238mn) and the insured unemployment rate at 1.7% (previous: 1.7%). On balance, we are looking through the volatility in this week’s report and view historically low labor market separations as indicative of solid labor market fundamentals." 
So, this is the spin. If the initial claims drop, it's a sign that the Obama plan (whatever it is, is working); if the initial claims surge, it's "volatility" and simply something to look past. 

Reuters was the only one to note:
Adding to the employment report's soft tone, 60,000 fewer jobs were created in April and May than previously reported.
At least 432,000 people dropped out of the labor force, pushing the unemployment rate two-tenths of a percentage point lower to 5.3 percent, the lowest since April 2008.
And none of the major news outlets reported this: jobless claims at 5-week high. Regular readers know that major news outlets never fail to mention "recent history" if the numbers are good, but no one, except this hard-to-find site mentioned that jobless claims at 5-week high.
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits increased by 10,000 to 281,000 in the week ended June 27th from 271,000 in the previous week.
The 4-week moving average was 274,750, an increase of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 273,750.
Enough of this. I think I get the picture.

And, no, the Fed is not going to raise rates after this report.


Link here:
The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2015 was 2.2 percent on July 1, up from 2.1 percent on June 25.
The nowcasts for second-quarter growth in real equipment and nonresidential structures investment increased slightly following this morning's construction spending release from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Manufacturing ISM Report on Business from the Institute of Supply Management.

Random Update Of CLR's Eight New Permits, Banks Oil Field -- July 1, 2015


July 22, 2018: production data updated; new graphic --

That new well, heel-to-toe, running north from the south:
  • 33228, 489, Oasis, Hagen Banks 5198 12-6 13TX, Banks, 4 sections, t11/18; cum 196K 6/19;
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

Original Post 

CLR has permits for eight more wells in section 25-152-99. This is where I think the pads will be located (it will be either on 8-well pad, or two pads very, very close together -- I think a single pad):

Other wells in the section:
  • 22155, 553, CLR, Lansing 2-25H, t5/12; cum 221K 7/19; nice jump in production;
  • 19126, 76, CLR, Lansing 1-25H, t11/10; cum 417K 7/19; nice jump in production;
  • 27551, 896, CLR, Steele Federal 4-24AH1, t5/15; cum 330K 7/19; a really nice well;
  • 27550, 1,239, CLR, Steele Federal 3-24AH, t5/15; cum 368K 7/19;; another really nice well;
  • 27549, 848, CLR, Lansing 4-25AH1, t5/15; cum 233K 7/19; huge jump 2/18 (see below);
  • 27548, 997, Lansing 3-25AH, t5/15; cum 314K 7/19; huge jump in 10/17 and not taken off-line prior;
The new locations in the oval areas in the graphic above (last checked 4/17):
  • 31516, 230, CLR, Lansing 5-25H1, t3/18; cum 121K 7/19;
  • 31517, 2,572, CLR, Lansing 6-25H, Banks, 56 stages; 9.3 million lbs large/mesh; 20 million gallons water, huge well; 50K+ in one month; t3/18; cum 285K 7/19;
  • 31518, 1,538, CLR, Lansing 8-25H1, Banks, t3/18; cum 180K 7/19;
  • 31519, 1,535, CLR, Lansing 9-25H, Banks, t3/18; cum 228K 7/19;
  • 31520, SI/NC, CLR, Steele Federal 5-24H1, no production data; SI/NC noted 6/19;
  • 31521, SI/NC, CLR, Steele Federal 6-24H, no production data; SI/NC noted 6/19;
  • 31522, SI/NC, CLR, Steele Federal 8-24H1, no production data; SI/NC noted 6/19;
  • 31523, SI/NC, CLR, Steele Federal 9-24H, no production data; SI/NC noted 6/19;

27548, API - 33-053-05643, no evidence of a re-frack according to FracFocus:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

27549, API - 33-053-05644, not re-fracked according to FracFocus:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

31518, API - 33-053-07062:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold

31517, API - 33-053-07061, huge frack, 20.8 million gallons of water (twice the usual currently used in the Bakken;, but look at this, 94.8% water; 56 stages; 9.3 million lbs large/mesh; 20 million gallons water, huge well; 50K+ in one month; t3/18; cum 140K 5/18;

DateOil RunsMCF Sold

22155, 553, CLR, Lansing 2-25H, t5/12; cum 185K 5/18; nice jump in production;
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

Earnings -- 2Q15

This is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, or relationship decisions based on what you read here. If this is important to you, go to the source. There will be factual and typographical errors on this page. If something looks wrong, it probably is.

Earnings Calendar

All 2Q15 earnings will be reported at this page; the link will be on the sidebar at the right, under "Earnings Central." When we start to see earnings reports for any quarter, the "Earnings Central" link is moved to the top of the sidebar until the earning season is over.

I don't have time to check/update earnings on all companies listed below. If you see one that I have missed, feel free to send it in (anonymous comment or by e-mail) and I will post it.

Much of this information is done in haste. I assume there are factual and typographical errors. It is for my personal use only. If this information is important to you, go to the source.

General update (dates subject to change)

EPS estimates in parentheses following the ticker symbol (according to Yahoo!Finance) -- typographical errors likely.

ARII (American Railcar Industries) ($): July 30

Anadarko (APC) ($ ): huge beat; $1 cent vs a loss of 54 cents. 

APA ($ ): beats by 48 cents; crushes loss estimate on production gains; shares up nicely; Reuters story here;

AXAS ($):  AP story; EPS in-line; loss of 6 cents; transcript;

AMZG ($):

Arch Coal (ACI):

BTE.TO (Baytex) ($): 

BAX ($ ):   60 cents; strong second quarter beating expectations;

BCEI ($ ): 
  • Bonanza Creek : Q2 EPS of -$0.14 misses by $0.04.
  • Revenue of $90.42M (-40.4% Y/Y) misses by $10.99M.
BHI ($ ):   BHI reported second-quarter 2015 adjusted loss from continuing operations of 14 cents a share, which came in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. The quarterly figure fell 115.2% from the year-ago adjusted profit level of 92 cents a share.

BK ($  ): BK second-quarter 2015 adjusted earnings per share of 77 cents came well ahead of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 66 cents, driven by improved top-line growth. Further, the figure compared favorably with the prior-year quarter adjusted earnings of 62 cents. Profit surges 48%.

BKH ($ ):  

BWC (Babcock & Wilcox) ($ ): 

Calfrac Well Services (CFW.TO):   Net loss attributable to shareholders of Calfrac was $43.3 million or $0.45 per share diluted, compared to $12.9 million or $0.14 per share diluted in the same period last year, primarily due to lower pricing for the Company's fracturing services.

CAT: beat, $1.27 vs $1.25;

CHK ($ ):
CLNE ($ ): misses by 2 cents; AP report;

CLR ($ ):  beats by 9 cents; AP report; transcript to follow;

CNR.TO (Canadian National Railway) ($  ): easily beats;
COP: reports a loss, but earnings beat expectations. I did not understand that.

CPG.T (Crescent Point) ($): Aug 13

CRR ( ):   Reports Q2 (Jun) loss of $0.41 per share, excluding $7.6 million, or $0.33 per share, of after-tax costs primarily associated with slowing and idling production, $0.27 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of ($0.68); revenues fell 58.5% year/year to $73.3 mln vs the $70.37 mln consensus.

CSX ($  ):  all-time record of 56 cents/share; quarterly operating income more than $1 billion for the first time in company history; all-time record of operating ratio of 67%; revenue declined 6%; income helped by cheap energy;

CVX ($):   30 cents vs $2.78 a year earlier;

DNR ($):  beats by 1 cent, misses on revenue, AP report;

DVN ($):    78 cents, 62.5% higher than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 48 cents. Earnings in the reported quarter were much lower than $1.40 in the year-ago quarter.

ECA ($): misses by 5 cents; a $1.91 / share but removing one-time loss, brought it back to a 20 cent/share loss

EEP ($):  announced a 2.3% increase in our cash distribution over the prior quarter, and together with the Alberta Clipper drop-down increase, our cash distribution level is approximately 5% greater than the second quarter of 2014.

ENB ($):  adjusted earnings rose 54 percent to C$505 million ($387 million), or 60 Canadian cents per share in the quarter. That was much higher than analysts' average estimate of 47 Canadian cents, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

EOG ($ ): Rigzone story here; beats by 17 cents; press release here;

EOX (Emerald; was VOG) ($ ): misses by 45 cents; press release;

EPD ($):  revenue falls short of analysts' expectations; 28 cent profit vs 34 cents a year earlier (wow)

ERF ($): August 7

ETP ($): 

GEOI (bought by Halcon [HK], below)

HAL ($0.29 ):  44 cents vs 29 cents expected.
HES ($): loss less than expected; share prices up slightly; post here;

HP ($):  Reports Q3 (Jun) earnings of $0.27 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.13 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $0.14; revenues fell 30.7% year/year to $659.7 mln vs the $607.25 mln consensus.

HK (Halcon; previously GEOI) ($): press release;

Kinder Morgan - KMI ($ ): Zacks, misses estimates; raises dividend 14%;

Kinder Morgan - KMP ($):  

KOG ($):  

LEG.TO (Legacy/Bowood) ($):

LINE ( ): July 30 conference call;

MDU ($0): press release; transcript
  • Q2 EPS of $0.15 misses by $0.02
  • revenue of $986.2M (+3.5% Y/Y) misses by $93.8M
MHR (Magnum Hunter) ($): 

MMR (McMoRan) ( ): 

MPC (Marathon Petroleum ($): 

MPO:  huge loss, 58 cents/share; earnings estimate was for 10 cents/share;

MRO (Marathon Oil) ($): Zacks; loss narrower than expected; 23 cents vs 27 cents;

NE (Noble Corp) ($ ): huge beat; beats by 11 cents; shares up 6%; holds gains after hours;

NBL: beats by $0.18, misses on revs; co raises 2015 sales volumes guidance

NBR ($): beats by 18 cents; loss of 13 cents;

NFX ($): beats expectations; earnings at 46 cents/share; estimate of 18 cents/share;

NGLS: beats by 3 cents;

NOG ($0): beats by 8 cents; transcript to follow;

NOV ($ ): beats by $0.13, beats on revs: Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $0.77 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.13 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $0.64; revenues fell 25.6% year/year to $3.91 bln vs the $3.86 bln consensus.

OAS ($0): beats by 10 cents; earnings at 38 cents/share, better than forecast of 27 cents/share;

OKE ($):  see OKS

OKS ($): misses by 1 cent;

OTTR ($): 30 cents;

OXY ($):  Occidental Petro misses by $0.01, misses on revs : Reports Q2 (Jun) adj. earnings of $0.21 per share, $0.01 worse than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $0.22; revenues fell 32.4% year/year to $3.47 bln vs the $3.59 bln consensus.

PAA ($): shares tumble 12%; EPS in-line; misses on revenues;

PSX ($):  earnings of $1.83 per share beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.81. The bottom line was also ahead of the year-ago quarter level of $1.51. Robust performance by the company’s Refining and Marketing segments supported the results.

PXD (Pioneer Natural Resources) ($):  beats by 6 cents; misses on revenue;

QEP ( ): beats by $0.19, reports revs in-line: Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $0.09 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.19 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of ($0.10); revenues fell 31.4% year/year to $608.6 mln vs the $606.9 mln consensus.

RRC (Range Resources):  misses by 3 cents;

RIG ($): 

SBUX (Starbucks) ($): surges; sales up 18%; shares up 5%; 42 cents vs 41 cents;

SD ($):  a loss of 3 cents per share, but beat estimates by 5 cents; Motley Fool;

SLB ($ ):  Easily beats estimates, 88 cents vs 79 cents; see also, this post;

SCTY:  after market close, from The Wall Street Journal -- Analysts polled by FactSet are expecting a quarterly net loss of $155 million, or $1.59 a share, compared with a loss of $74 million, or 96 cents a share, a year earlier.
SM ($):  from the AP --
On a per-share basis, the Denver-based company said it had a loss of 85 cents. Earnings, adjusted for non-recurring costs, came to 49 cents per share.
The results surpassed Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of 10 analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for a loss of 15 cents per share.

SRE ():  press release; $1.00, in-line with estimates; revenue of $2.4 billion misses by $370 million; transcript;



STO (BEXP) ($):  
STR ($): beats by 1 cent, reaffirms guidance; AP report;

T ($): great quarter;
The company’s better-than-expected earnings were driven by 2.1 million wireless subscriber additions. Following the result, the company’s shares gained 2.3% yesterday in the after-hour trading session.   
AT&T’s adjusted earnings per share moved up 11.3% year over year to 69 cents, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 63 cents. However, the company reported net income of $3.1 billion or earnings per share of 58 cents in comparison with net income of $3.6 billion or 68 cents in the year-ago quarter.
Targa Resources (TRGP):

TPLM ($): 

TSO (): beats by 57 cents; approves 18% increase to dividend; AP report;

TransCanada (TRP.TO) ($):
better-than-expected earnings and revenue for the second quarter, which it attributed to strong results from its three key businesses. The Calgary, Alberta-based pipeline company, which continues to await a final decision on its long-delayed Keystone XL project, said earnings improved in each of its natural-gas pipelines, liquids pipelines and energy divisions in the quarter. Second-quarter profit climbed 3% to 454 million Canadian dollars ($349 million), or 60 Canadian cents a share, the company said. Comparable earnings, which exclude items, improved to 56 Canadian cents a share from 47 Canadian cents and beat the Thomson Reuters mean estimate of 52 Canadian cents. TransCanada said unusual items in the latest quarter included an income-tax adjustment due to a higher corporate tax rate in its home province, and a C$8 million charge for severance costs related to some project restructurings.
Ultra Petroleum (UPL) ($):
Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $0.21 per share, $0.04 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $0.17; revenues fell 29.7% year/year to $207.99 mln vs the $249.35 mln consensus. For the second quarter of 2015, production of natural gas and oil was 70.5 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe). The company's production for the second quarter was comprised of 65.1 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas and 900.0 thousand barrels (Mbls) of oil and condensate. During the second quarter of the year, Ultra Petroleum's average realized natural gas price was $3.33 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf), including realized gains and losses on commodity hedges.
UNP ($):  $1.38; disappointing; shares fall 6%;

USEG ($): 

VLO ($ ):   Valero beats on earnings. Earnings per share from continuing operations came in at $2.66, above the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.41

WDFC ($0.78):  75 cents;

WFT ($ ): huge miss; loss of 63 cents vs expectation of only a loss of 12 cents; will cut jobs; shares up slightly

WHX: last payment made recently


WLL ($ ): shares surge 6% just before earnings come out; beats by 2 cents; 4 cents vs 2 cents;

WMB ($ ): 

WPX (): August 4?

XOM:  second quarter 2015 earnings of $4.2 billion, or $1 per diluted share, compared with $8.8 billion a year earlier.
Downstream and chemical earnings increased significantly from the second quarter of 2014, driven by higher margins, continued strong demand, and the quality of our product and asset mix. Upstream production volumes of 4 million oil equivalent barrels per day were 3.6% higher compared to a year-ago quarter, and liquids volumes were up nearly 12%. Growth was underpinned by an increased level of new development start-ups over the last 18 months, largely in Africa, Canada, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the United States.
XLNX ($):  beats estimates; misses on revenues; The California-based chipmaker’s adjusted earnings of 55 cents per share beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 53 cents. However, on a year-over year basis, it declined 11.8% mainly due to weak top-line performance.