Venezuela -- Tick, Tick, Tick -- State Of Emergency Declared -- May 13, 2016

Updates

May 14, 2016: breaking news last night was the 60-day state of emergency declared by the Venezuelan president. This morning, front page of The WSJ: US sees growing risk of coup in Venezuela.

Now we know why the president declared the 60-day state of emergency. It was the one thing I failed to mention below. Oh well. No one is correct 100% of the time. Even Rush admits to being correct only 99.7% of the time (and "right" 100% of the time -- badda-bing).

Venezuela is descending into a deepening crisis that could end in violence, including the possibility of a coup against that country’s embattled leftist government, senior U.S. intelligence officials said Friday.

There is a “potential for real violence,” one of two officials said in a briefing with a small group of reporters. “It’s hard for me to see how this ends easily.”

The officials, who have extensive experience in the region, said that they and others in the intelligence community increasingly believe that President Nicolás Maduro could be removed from office, either in a “palace coup” led by associates close to him or in a military uprising. They said that the possibility of an overthrow or street violence is of concern to American officials, who want to avoid anarchy in an oil-rich country just a three-hour flight from Miami.

“The goal is to mitigate the crisis that they’re experiencing,” said the official. “It’s in the United States’ interest that Venezuela not bottom out.”

He said, however, that Washington’s options are limited because of Mr. Maduro’s antipathy toward the U.S., which he frequently blames for orchestrating “an economic war” designed to destabilize his government. 

Original Post

 

Breaking news: Venezuela's president declares 60-day state of emergency, says opposition and US are trying to topple his government - Reuters.

I assume the president declared a state of emergency to allow the military carte blanche to put down anti-government demonstrations, protests, and other acts of civil disobedience. From what I can tell, not much else can be done. Nationalizing anything that isn't already nationalized might be part of the plan but it won't solve any problems. It also permits the government to make sure that essential government personnel (military personnel, police forces) remain on the job.

Crockett's Theme, Miami Vice, Jan Hammer

Week 19: May 8, 2016 -- May 14, 2016

The biggest story this past week was the "announcement" that global energy consumption will increase by almost 50% (48% was the actual number) over the next thirty years. That is absolutely phenomenal.

It's hard to read but it appears that energy consumption per the graph below:

• 1980: 300 exajoules/year
• 2010: 550 exajoules/year (550-300)/300 = an 83% increase in energy consumption

Forecast: 550 x 1.48 = 815 exajoules; 815 - 550 = 265 exajoules.

Although the rate of growth over the next thirty years (at 48%) is significantly less than 83% over the past 30 years, the actual increase in exajoules is 265 exajoules/year more than currently used, and 265 exajoules is almost the total amount of energy consumed in 1980.

1980 was not all that long ago.

In other words, by the time your grandchildren are young adults, the world will be consuming as much energy as it is today plus the same amount of total global energy that was consumed in the 1970s.

By the way, a slight digression: when did the slope of the line begin to move practically straight up? Right after 1950, right after WWII. Energy growth was essentially flat from 1820 to 1930.

The numbers were run some years ago, and it was clear there is not enough surface area globally for wind/solar to make much difference, and in the graph above, wind and solar are so minimal they are not even reflected, so let's get the wind / solar discussion out of the way now.

Nuclear is dead for at least another ten years, which means another 20 years before any meaningful change in a nuclear contribution (and even when nuclear was a player, look how slim the "orange" slice is in the graphic below).

So, that gets us back to coal, oil, and natural gas.

For all the natural gas that has been discovered in past couple of years, look how little changed the consumption of natural gas has been for several decades. I think it's amazing how thick the "green seam" -- oil -- is. And it's my understanding that within the next twenty years, maybe ten years, Saudi Arabia becomes a net importer of oil.

The second biggest story was the "announcement" that oil discoveries are at a 60-year low.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like it takes a rocket scientist to tell us the 2020 - 2030 decade, from an energy standpoint, is going to be a fascinating decade.

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

Top Stories This Past Week

 
Trump
Trump to speak at Bismarck oil and gas conference

Director's Cut
March, 2016, data is posted; month-over-month North Dakota crude oil production unchanged

Operations
Data points for North Dakota crude oil production, March, 2016; two tables 
Thirty-nine (39) North Dakota permits renewed
Oasis quarterly presentation
EOG conference call; quarterly presentation
EOG can post "strong returns" with $40 oil

Fracking/EOR
EOG experience

EOR
The Alberta Bakken experience

Miscellaneous
OPEC production increasing; driving season coming up 
Except for three US on-shore plays, oil at $45 not much better than oil at $35
EPA posts new methane emissions rules; minimal effect on the Bakken
Global oil consumption by top 20 consuming nations
Cool human interest story on the Permian
Global energy consumption to grow by almost 50% over next 30 years
Bakken crude oil differentials surge to 3-year highs on Alberta fires
Global oil discoveries drop to 60-year lows
Nigerian oil production plummets 

Saudi Transformation
Two articles in the WSJ
Saudi resurgence 
Saudi's 80-year-old finance minister takes early retirement; keeps head 

Crude Oil Data Points For The Bakken, March, 2016; Top Twenty Oil Fields Arranged By Oil/Well/Month (Descending) -- March, 2016 Data

Note: in a long table like this, there are bound to be typographical and factual errors. I am posting this for my own benefit; I do not encourage others to pay much attention to it if it's important to them. If this data is important to you, go to the source (the NDIC).  Whether every last data point is accurate or not does not concern me; I am interested in getting an idea of what is going on in the Bakken, nothing more, nothing less.

The table below reflects data for the past three months of data, January, 2016, through March, 2016.

The first table is ordered from greatest to least, the amount of oil per well per the entire month of March (second to last column).

In a long list like this there are likely to be typographical and factual errors. I have cross-checked a couple columns but not all of them. I will do some more checking later on and make corrections as needed.

The total North Dakota crude oil production was essentially unchanged month-over-month, February, 2016, through March, 2016, despite the fact that very, very few new wells were completed in the past month.

So, how is that possible? When you run down the table, pay attention to the number of wells in each field, and take a field, for example, Long Creek. In both February and March it had the same number of wells. I did not check but I would bet a six pack that there were no new wells in Long Creek in March; these are the same wells as in February. But note the 20% increase in well production in Long Creek. Interesting, huh? Again, I haven't double-checked the numbers but I'm pretty sure most are correct.

Another example is Bear Den: the number of wells did not change (44), and yet production increased 22% month-over-month, December, 2015, to January, 2016; increased 17% the following reporting period, and then increased another 12% this most recent reporting period. And these are probably the same 44 wells for the past several months.

For each month there are four columns.

• the first month is the total amount of oil produced by the particular field
• the second column is the number of active wells in that particular field
• the third column is the amount of oil per well for the entire month (not daily)
• the fourth column is the percent change of the amount of oil per well per month, month-over-month

Some squares are blank because I did not capture the date that month. I have no idea why the grid lines did not show up in some cases.

Field	January 2016	Jan Wells	Jan Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Dec-to-Jan	February 2016	Feb Wells	Feb Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Jan-to-Feb	March 2016	March Wells	Mar Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Feb-to-Mar
Twin Valley					159,498	17	9,382		169,141	18	9,397	0.15%
Spotted Horn	408,309	66	6,187	15.03%	397,868	70	5,684	-2.56%	651,954	72	9,055	37.23%
Long Creek	242,123	27	8,968	7.90%	170,498	27	6,315	-29.58%	212,573	27	7,873	19.79%
Bear Den	244,669	44	5,561	22.34%	286,133	44	6,503	16.95%	327,380	44	7,440	12.60%
Bear Creek					177,384	27	6,570		184,850	27	6,846	4.04%
Grail	840,089	159	5,284	10.43%	954,428	168	5,681	13.61%	1,091,032	172	6,343	10.44%
Pershing	320,227	39	8,211	20.89%	254,260	39	6,519	-20.60%	245,755	39	6,301	-3.46%
Camel Butte	346,584	34	10,194	-0.54%	254,196	34	7,476	-26.66%	213,467	34	6,278	-19.08%
Antelope	942,578	157	6,004	-0.00%	939,734	162	5,801	-0.30%	973,685	162	6,010	3.49%
Tobacco Garden					257,896	52	4,960		283,781	52	5,457	9.12%
Corral Creek	701,919	141	4,978	-2.87%	814,870	148	5,506	16.09%	787,759	148	5,323	-3.44%
East Fork	525,808	99	5,311	6.00%	473,133	99	4,779	-10.02%	539,008	102	5,284	9.56%
South Fork					136,699	29	4,714		140,314	29	4,838	2.58%
Lost Bridge	266,840	53	5,035	1.69%	256,930	53	4,848	-3.71%	253,549	53	4,784	-1.33%
McGregory Buttes	377,350	84	4,492	2.06%	346,188	84	4,121	-8.26%	393,480	84	4,684	12.02%
Crazy Man Creek	224,303	44	5,098	7.25%	191,404	44	4,350	-14.67%	205,655	44	4,674	6.93%
Blue Buttes	783,914	135	5,807	-0.85%	674,886	137	4,926	-13.91%	636,797	137	4,648	-5.98%
Alkali Creek	651,321	138	4,720	-1.82%	674,787	140	4,820	3.60%	654,870	141	4,644	-3.78%
Reunion Bay	691,065	146	4,733	-1.82%	633,995	146	4,342	-8.26%	675,936	146	4,630	6.20%
Johnson Corner					124,815	31	4,026		141,232	31	4,556	11.62%

These are the top 20 oil fields based on total field production (arranged greatest to least) for March, 2016: the fourth to last column. Compare the number of wells in the top four producing fields. Note Spotted Horn field with only 72 wells vs the Sanish with 600 wells (and, yes, I just went back and checked the Spotted Horn data for March, 2016):

Field	January 2016	Jan Wells	Jan Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Dec-to-Jan	February 2016	Feb Wells	Feb Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Jan-to-Feb	March 2016	March Wells	Mar Oil/Well/Month	Percent Change Feb-to-Mar
Sanish	1,610,948	596	2,703	3.35%	1,489,171	600	2,482	-7.56%	1,618,389	600	2,697	7.98%
Grail	840,089	159	5,284	10.43%	954,428	168	5,681	13.61%	1,091,032	172	6,343	10.44%
Parshall	1,122,403	421	2,666	-5.64%	999,597	422	2,369	-10.94%	1,010,286	423	2,388	0.82%
Antelope	942,578	157	6,004	-0.00%	939,734	162	5,801	-0.30%	973,685	162	6,010	3.49%
Siverston	711,959	214	3,327	-2.60%	667,148	218	3,060	-6.29%	813,390	223	3,647	16.10%
Corral Creek	701,919	141	4,978	-2.87%	814,870	148	5,506	16.09%	787,759	148	5,323	-3.44%
Alger	768,741	308	2,496	-8.12%	723,330	308	2,348	-5.91%	752,440	308	2,443	3.87%
Reunion Bay	691,065	146	4,733	-1.82%	633,995	146	4,342	-8.26%	675,936	146	4,630	6.20%
Alkali Creek	651,321	138	4,720	-1.82%	674,787	140	4,820	3.60%	654,870	141	4,644	-3.78%
Spotted Horn	408,309	66	6,187	15.03%	397,868	70	5,684	-2.56%	651,954	72	9,055	37.23%
Blue Buttes	783,914	135	5,807	-0.85%	674,886	137	4,926	-13.91%	636,797	137	4,648	-5.98%
Banks	613,342	165	3,717	-9.92%	581,181	166	3,501	-5.24%	628,133	171	3,673	4.69%
Heart Butte	628,965	170	3,700	1.81%	561,081	173	3,243	-10.79%	623,306	177	3,522	7.90%
Truax	572,302	165	3,468	0.79%	568,820	171	3,326	-0.61%	553,547	171	3,237	-2.76%
East Fork	525,808	99	5,311	6.00%	473,133	99	4,779	-10.02%	539,008	102	5,284	9.56%
Van Hook	599,489	178	3,368	-14.11%	489,871	178	2,752	-18.29%	523,647	178	2,942	6.45%
Robinson Lake	493,399	168	2,937	24.36%	499,861	168	2,975	1.31%	485,098	168	2,887	-3.04%
Camp	388,494	115	3,378	20.90%	336,694	115	2,928	-13.33%	440,419	119	3,701	20.89%
Hawkeye	351,401	96	3,660	4.69%	294,973	96	3,073	-16.06%	427,123	101	4,229	27.34%
Bailey	407,915	148	2,756	5.11%	433,251	149	2,908	6.21%	412,982	149	2,772	-4.91%