Six (6) New DUCS In The Bakken; Halcon Reports A Nice Well -- February 15, 2016

Active rigs:

	2/16/2016	02/16/2015	02/16/2014	02/16/2013	02/16/2012
Active Rigs	41	136	185	181	200

 
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
30732, drl, Slawson, River Rat Federal 1-23-14H, Big Bend, no production data,
31587, SI/NC, Statoil, Ruth 28-33 7H, East Fork, no production data,
31646, 1,020, Hess, HA-Swenson-152-95-1819H-10, Hawkeye, t12/15; cum 20K after 17 days;

Monday, February 15, 2016
30965, SI/NC, CLR, Uhlman Federal 2-7H1, Banks, no production data,
31621, 361, SM Energy, Schell 3B-28HN, Whiteaker, t12/15; cum 8K after 32 days;
31647, 835, Hess, HA-Swenson-152-95-1819H-9, Hawkeye, t12/15; cum 20K after 25 days;

Sunday, February 14, 2016
30731, drl, Slawson, River Rat Federal 6-23-14MLH, Big Bend, no production data,
30964, SI/NC, CLR, Uhlman Federal 307H, Banks, no production data,
31525, 87, Resonance Exploration, Resonance R.E. Ballentyne Farms 1-30H, Westhope, a Spearfish/Madison well, 320-acre spacing, horizontal, vertical depth about 3,400 feet; total depth 5,347 feet, t10/15; 
31586, SI/NC, Statoil, Jack 21-16 7TFH, East Fork, no production data, 

Saturday, February 13, 2016
30616, SI/NC, Noah Energy, BP North Haas 1-4-20-163-82, North Haas, no production data,
30680, 823, HRC, Fort Berthold 147-94-1A-12-9H, McGregory Buttes, t8/15; cum 88K 12/15;
30966, SI/NC, CLR, Pittsburgh 3-7H, Banks, no production data,
31620, 224, SM Energy, Schell 3-28HSA, Moraine, t12/15; cum 8K 12/15;

Comments: the first Noah Energy permit in North Dakota was mentioned on February 2, 2015. Noah Energy has two permits in North Dakota. I believe this is the first of their two wells to come off the confidential list. There other permit is #30638. Both wells will be in same section.

************************************************

31620, see above, SM Energy, Schell 3-28HSA, Moraine:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	6450	3818
11-2015	1079	0

30680, see above, HRC, Fort Berthold 147-94-1A-12-9H, McGregory Buttes:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	8939	6188
11-2015	21629	16460
10-2015	11857	6902
9-2015	31251	29953
8-2015	14242	13364

31525, see above, Resonance Exploration, Resonance R.E. Ballentyne Farms 1-30H, Westhope:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	456	0
11-2015	459	0
10-2015	740	0

31647, see above, Hess, HA-Swenson-152-95-1819H-9, Hawkeye:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	19344	22584

31646, see above, Hess, HA-Swenson-152-95-1819H-10, Hawkeye:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	19596	20004

31621, see above, SM Energy, Schell 3B-28HN, Whiteaker:

Date	Oil Runs	MCF Sold
12-2015	6036	5232
11-2015	1580	0

California Wind Farm Investors Feel A Huge Sucking Wind -- February 15, 2016

I talked about this wind farm back on July 24, 2011. It is amazing what goes around, comes around.

Now, The Miami Herald is reporting that investors in this wind farm may be on the hook for millions in "pay-back:" Investors in huge California wind farm might end up repaying federal subsidies.

A giant wind farm in California’s southern San Joaquin Valley is blowing gusts through a faraway federal court, with tens of millions of dollars potentially up in the air.

Some of the wind farm’s early investors want more than $200 million in additional subsidies that they say the federal government owes them. Obama administration officials, in turn, argue that the government paid $59 million too much. This week, a judge sharpened the administration’s side of the sword, agreeing that the U.S. can try to retrieve some of the taxpayer dollars paid.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas C. Wheeler said in a decision Monday that the Treasury Department could counter the claims from investors in the Alta Wind project, the largest wind farm in the United States.

The wind farm investors, Wheeler wrote, “have no guarantee of keeping the amounts that Treasury paid them.” He noted that “a refund always was a possibility given a proper understanding of the issues.” As a result, an upcoming trial will determine who owes money to whom.

Wheeler’s ruling seems an unexpected turn for the Alta Wind Facility, located in the Tehachapi Mountains of Kern County. When some of the Alta Wind investors first started suing in 2013 to get a bigger share of federal money, the possibility that they could be the ones owing $59 million did not appear to be on the table.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article59876436.html#storylink=cpy

Don't mess around with Jim, don't spit into the wind, I came to get my money back:

Don't Mess Around With Jim, Jim Croce

********************************

Nevada Solar

Meanwhile over in Nevada, regulators are thinking of phasing in rate increases over 12 years rather than over 4 years.

The Nevada Public Utilities Commission has voted to phase in higher rates for rooftop solar customers over a longer period of time than previously approved.

Regulators voted 3-0 on Friday to implement the new rates over 12 years, rather than four years.

Commissioners approved new rates in December for customers who use net metering, or sell excess energy from their solar panels back to the utility.

Regulators say the rates better reflect the declining cost of solar power and phase out a subsidy traditional energy customers pay to support a much-smaller group of rooftop solar customers.

Solar customers say it means their panels will take years more to pay off. Solar companies have responded by laying off employees and staging large protests outside PUC meetings.

And the vote wasn't even close: 3 - 0.

Random Update Brent-WTI Spread -- February 15, 2016

I track the spread here, periodically. Remember, also, this change.

From February 8, 2016, a dynamic link:

Brent WTI Spread is at a current level of 1.93, an increase of 0.44 or 29.53% from the previous market day. This is a decrease of 2.29 or 54.27% from last year and is higher than the long term average of 0.7531.

From Yahoo!Finance:

NYMEX near-month WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude oil futures prices fell 8.1% in the week ending February 5, 2016. WTI crude oil prices closed at $30.89 per barrel on Friday, February 5, compared to $33.62 per barrel for the week ending January 29, 2016. In comparison, Brent oil first-line futures prices fell 2% to $34.06 per barrel in the week ending February 5 from $34.74 at the end of the previous week. Thus, WTI crude oil prices fell more during the week, resulting in an increase in the WTI-Brent spread.

From Market Realist, February 10, 2016 (see first comment below; Market Realist may be comparing March apples to April oranges):

The current Brent-WTI spread is at $2.36 per barrel as of Tuesday, February 9, 2016.

Brent and WTI crude oil prices settled at $37.72 and $36.76 per barrel, respectively, on January 4, 2016. The Brent-WTI crude oil spread was $1.04 per barrel on the first trading day of 2016.

The lifting of the US crude oil export ban boosted US crude oil prices in early 2016. US crude oil prices also rose due to slowing US crude oil production. However, the long-term oversupply concerns and record production from OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) weighed on Brent crude oil prices. So Brent prices fell more than WTI, making the Brent-WTI spread narrow in early 2016.

US crude oil production has not slowed down in 2016 as expected. So US oil prices started to fall more than expected in 2016. But speculation of a collective production cut from OPEC and non-OPEC boosted Brent more than WTI in the last two weeks.

However, the fading ties of production cuts are putting pressure on oil prices. Rising supplies are also putting pressure on US oil prices. So the Brent-WTI spread widened in February.

By the end of the week, according to an e-mail from a reader, the WTI-Brent spread had gone to $3.75.

This was posted back on December 17, 2015:

Some analysts suggest WTI has to have a $4 premium to Brent to make WTI competitive; right now, WTI is selling about $1.10 less than Brent. The WTI-Brent spread will take on huge importance.