Thursday, August 11, 2016

Results Of North Dakota's Quarterly Lease Auction; You Can Own A Piece Of The Bakken For $1/Acre; Raisa Energy Paid $20,000/Mineral Acre in Mountrail County -- August, 2016

Hardly worth noting.

Billings County
  • almost all tracts for $1 / acre
  • Wildcat Oil & Gas did pay $36 / acre for a 79-acre parcel
Burke County
  • $170/acre for several parcels; buyer: Ancient Sunlight Resources, LLC
Divide County
  • a few parcels; $50 - $55/acre
Dunn County
  • a few parcels for $75/acre, but not much else
Golden Valley County
  • $27 - $32 / acre; Petro-Sentinel, LLC; and, NP Resources, LLC
McKenzie County
  • one 6.56 acre parcel for $450 / acre
  • several parcels, $180 - $220
  • many, many parcels for $1 / acre
Mountrail County
Stark County
  • many, many parcels, all below $10/acre
  • most at $1 / acre
Ward County (Minot)
  • many parcels, but all $1 / acre
Williams (Williston)
  • five parcels; Liberty Resources II, LLC, paid $475/acre for four parcels;

Laying The Dakota Access Pipeline South Of Bismarck-Mandan, ND -- August 11, 2016

Fifteen miles south of Mandan, ND, near St Anthony, ND, pipeline mile marker #116, laying of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Photo taken by a reader.

Been there, done there, got the t-shirt. [If the link is broken, it's from The [London] Guardian, a letter supposedly written by a Lakotan who was protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. An accompanying photo shows maybe 20 teenagers, with Black Power Salute, in "No Dakota Access Pipeline" t-shirts.]

The Ledecky Page

The new face of swimming ... and it's Katie Ledecky. The Los Angeles Times.

Speaking Of Swimming

Could this shark actually live 500 years? Some think so. The Greenland shark.

Nine New Permits; Ten Producing Wells Completed; Six Permits Renewed -- August 11, 2016

Active rigs:

Active Rigs3470194184199

Wells coming off confidential list Friday: it appears no wells come off the confidential list until August 16, 2016.

Nine new permits:
  • Operators: BR (5), Oasis (4)
  • Fields: Blue Buttes (McKenzie), Banks (McKenzie)
  • Comments:
Six permits renewed:
  • CLR: three Mittlestadt and three Jensen permits, all in Dunn County
Ten producing wells completed:
  • 30327, 372, SM Energy, Colleen 4-14HS, West Ambrose, 4 sections, t8/16; cum --
  • 30328, 255, SM Energy, Nancy 4-14HN, West Ambrose, 4 sections, t8/16 cum --
  • 30329, 290, SM Energy, Maria 4B-14HN, West Ambrose, 2 sections, t8/16; cum --
  • 30330, 290, SM Energy, Beth 4B-14HS, West Ambrose, 2 sections, t8/16; cum --
  • 30421, 1,060, Hess, HA-Sanford-152-96-1819H-6, Westberg, t7/16; cum --
  • 30426, 1,206, Hess, HA-Sanford-LW-152-96-1819H-1, Westberg, t8/16; cum --
  • 31666, 887, EOG, Austin 433-3402H, Parshall, t7/16; cum --
  • 32335, 370, SM Energy, Nystuen 14-35HN, Moraine, t8/16; cum --
  • 32336, 326, SM Energy, Nystuen 14B-35HS, Skabo, t7/16; cum 2K after 13 days;
  • 32376, 403, SM Energy, M Haugen 14B-24HN, Smokey Butte, t7/16 cum 7K 6/16;

Dow Hits All-Time High; The Market: Hitting On All Cylinders -- August 11, 2016


Later, 7:51 p.m. Central Time: apparently DFW Airport recorded a record high for August 11, 2016, today: 103 degrees. Our in-car thermometer showed it to be 105 degrees. I thought it felt hot today while biking. But at least it was a dry heat. LOL.

Original Post
Wow, I'm in a great mood.

First, a shout-out to all my readers. I appreciate all the comments, tips, photos, etc. I apologize if it takes awhile to get back to everyone or takes awhile to get something posted.

Second, I'm in a great mood because I just had a great 10-mile bike ride during the middle of the day, here in north Texas. And then a few quick laps in the pool to cool off.

Third, look at this: the Dow, S & P 500, and the NASDAQ all close at records on the same day for the first time since 1999. Donald Trump calls it a bubble. I don't know what Hillary calls it but something tells me her Foundation is doing very well. And I'm not talking about her cosmetic foundation but that, too, is probably doing well. Considering.

The 1-second analysis:
The rally was sparked by higher oil prices and earnings reports from U.S. retailers that weren’t as weak as feared.
The 30-year Dow:

The Clinton News Network Short-Circuits -- August 11, 2016

Comment to follow, once I cool down from a 10-mile bike ride in Texas high-noon heat.

Screen shot taken at 3:53 p.m., Thursday, August 11, 2016, Clinton Central Time. The link is here to see if they bother to correct the bullet.

Best Link For The Month? Fracking Pollution Story Retracted; Incorrect Analysis Of The Data -- August 11, 2016


August 15, 2016: bottom line -- when natural gas is extracted from the earth, there will be associated PAHs. The level of PAHs are so low as to be irrelevant. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that any method of natural gas extraction is any better or any worse than any other method when it comes to PAHs. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of more than 100 different chemicals that are released from burning coal, oil, gasoline, trash, tobacco, wood, or other organic substances such as charcoal-broiled meat. They are also called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. PAHs are ubiquitous in our environment. 

August 15, 2016: the reader also notes that previous headlines regarding this "study" suggest that this "study" was about fracking. Fracking may have been the target for the investment in this study but fracking is reduced to a coincidental in the actual design and research "objective" of the study which was air, not fracking, something somewhat confirmed by its redaction from the latest iteration of the study's subject line, "emissions of PAHs from natural gas extraction into air." Nothing about fracking in the title; it was redacted.

The reader notes that a study of fracking would have necessitated assessments before, during, after, and directly related to fracking, and not simply an assignment of guilt by association on the order of a bank client's mere presence at the scene when a bank is robbed.

The reader had much more to say, but I will leave it at that for now.

August 15, 2016: I can only "see" this (see original post) as scientific fraud. An erroneous study was deliberately published to move an agenda and "peer reviewers" did not catch the egregious errors. It appears this is not the first time these authors have done this, including the later retraction.

A reader really helped me out, doing the research I did not have time to do (or probably could not do even if I tried), on the study that was retracted regarding fracking and air pollution. I think the entire article bordered on scientific fraud. The reader provided quite an in-depth look at the article. Below are his comments with minimal editing.

From a reader:
1. The reader agrees that the reported miscalculatioins are as jaw dropping as the range of their divergence from the adjusted "corrected" figures
2. The reader wanted to know a) the EPA's "acceptable" risk and by how much PAH exposure from fracking exceeded the EPA's cancer risk level. The EPA's' "acceptable risk level" is one additional cancer per one million people. Working backwards from limited data, the reader calculated that the EPA's own risk level is/was 25 times higher than the study's correct risk level of 0.04 in a million or one in 25 million.
3. NOTE: The CORRECTED value is 0.4% of what the fake/wrong/miscalculated number was. Again, the corrected PAH values are about 0.4% of those originally reported.
4. The reader noted that too many details were missing in the original document to determine how flawed the study design or how inconsequential the original study was. 
5. I replied to the reader, emphasizing what he also said: Premature publication of false conclusions may be impossible to erase with a less than sensational report of a recalculation that reduced a risk of cancer from compounds (PAHs), exposure to which "can be harmful at any level."  
The reader then went on to provide some observations:
1.  "Fracking," as in "Fracking Air Pollution Study," sounds like a pejorative.  As such,  it may well be serving conversations about this and another study, also retracted, by the same team, and that related to the BP Gulf Oil Spill. (See the last paragraph of this report.)

2.  A study title such as "Fracking Air Pollution Study" injects the bias that air pollution from fracking is established fact, when  establishing that fact ought to and may be part and parcel of the study itself.  

3.  The study was conducted in an area where gas well drilling and fracking was going on, but its data relates to proximity to "active" gas wells and not specifically to fracking which could have been in progress, completed or may not have taken place at all at the subject gas wells.

4.  For this article, "The researchers then recalculated the excess lifetime cancer risk level . . . at a variety of different exposures . . . [up to] 350 days per year for over 26 years."
"The researchers . . ."? ---My reading of the article leads me to believe the recalculations and corrected results reported here are by the same Kim Anderson, Oregon State University, and research team that did the original study.  So, it's not, as I initially presumed,  by an independent, disinterested 3rd party or peer review group.  Knowing who funded the study and, if EPA-funded, what roll if any the heading, "Fracking air pollution study,"  played in approval of a grant funding the study and its corrective is beyond suspicion.
". . . then recalculated . . ."?  The researchers had  used the wrong "ideal gas constant" figure in the original study.  It would appear that, instead of a complete do-over of the study, no re-evaluation for other study design flaws,  they used the same research data and just recalculated with the corrected "constant."  One would have to see the equation or calculations to know if the corrected figures which lowered the value for  concentrations of PAHs  within 528 ft. of an active well from 330 ng/ cubic meter to 1.3 ng/cubic meter might also have  so reduced the significance of "forensic" profiles of PAHs as to place the distinction between a natural gas source and a combustion source (smoking, vehicle exhaust, wood-burning stoves, gas escapes [in repairing, coupling,  connecting,  fueling equipment that is normal activity on any well site  but with no direct link to fracking itself],   natural gas heaters and furnaces---it was, after all, winter, or I would have included barbecue grills. --- Where was I?---Oh, yes.   Is the forensic evidence for a distinction between natural gas sources and combustion sources now within the margin of error or also reduced to statistical  irrelevance if not a negative correlation?   Note, the study's corrected PAH values are "on the same order of magnitude as PAH values at rural sites far from natural gas production . . . ."   Isn't that amazing?  
". . . the EXCESS  lifetime cancer risk level . . ."? (Caps, my own)   In excess of what?  Corrected, it's not just "within" or "well within the EPA's most conservative acceptable risk level of 1 cancer in a million"  but, at 1 cancer in 25 million, it begs for the question, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  There is a higher probability that the study was funded by a grant through the EPA and to which, unbeknownst to me, I contributed an amount equal to all the annual compound interest on the balance in my checking account.  
5. The study took place in winter.  What seasonal or geographical factors (hill or hollow, open grassland or woodland, sleet or snow)  could skew passive air sampler measurements of PAHs, absorbed over several weeks by polyethylene strips ? 
My next logical step would be to read the actual initial and corrected study report.  But I can't find enough merit in either, from this article, to spend any more time on them.
That was the first note from the reader.
Then the second follow-up note from the same reader:
Matter resolved.  The spreadsheet used was complicated.  An honest mistake.  Not the first time.  Peer review didn't even catch it.  Published reports have been retracted by their respective journals.  Good mileage out of the erroneous "constant,"  before retraction.  Poof!  Gone! ---Like some now infamous e-mails.  Now, how will I learn what the original values were that were about , 99.6% higher than the corrected ones if I'm mathematically correct.
And the reader continues with a third update. The whole study / retraction is more than fishy. One wonders who put the pressure on the authors to retract the erroneous study. I talked about that in the original post. This is the third note from the same reader concerning this story:
Would you know this was the correction of a retracted, earlier study, but for the OSU announcement and link to this and the BP Gulf oil spill retractions of published articles by the same research leader and her team?
".  .  . and CARCINOGENIC POTENCY of PAH mixtures were highest when samplers were closest to active wells."
 Note the very next sentence:
"PAH levels closest to natural gas activity were comparable to levels previously reported in rural areas in winter." 
[The Deirdere Lockwood article, reporting on the retraction, reads, " on the same order of magnitude as PAH values at rural sites far from natural gas production and . . . ."  Given three proximity ranges for the study, from within 528 ft. to 3 mi. from an active well, it would be reasonable to assume "in rural areas" and "far from natural gas production" to thus mean over 3 miles from an active well.  I haven't downloaded the full report and probably won't.]
Do you recognize that both above-quoted statements describe samples in the same proximity and study parameters?   Both in the same winter period, quite possibly even the same sampling which saw a PAH value of 330 retracted and revised to 1.2 ng/m3.
According to this revised abstract, a risk level of 0.04 in a million "is below the [EPA's] acceptable risk level."
How much is 0.04  in a million below 1 in a million? --- Did my math hold up?  Isn't it 25 times lower and therefore 1 in 25,000,000? 
Again: this is the replacement for a retracted study report?
To the best of my knowledge, my editing did not change any of the reader's observations or conclusions. If there are errors in anything posted above, they are mine, not the reader's. In a long note like this, there will be typographical and factual errors. Opinions are mixed with facts. If this information is important to you, check out the links. Do not quote me on this stuff; I am posting this for the archival importance and to help me better understand the Bakken. 
Original Post
From a reader. Thank you, very much.

From Chemical & Engineering News:
Because of calculation errors, researchers have retracted a 2015 study showing that airborne pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) near fracking sites in Ohio posed elevated cancer risk to area residents and workers.
In a new paper, the team reports corrected PAH values that are about 0.4% of those originally reported. In contrast to the original study’s conclusions, the researchers estimate that exposure to these PAH levels does not exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable risk levels for cancer.
If that is not a typo, read that again: PAH values that are about 0.4% of those originally reported. They didn't say PAH values were about 0.4%. They said recalculating the "true" values are about 0.4% of what they originally posted. Do you know how far off that is? It's hard to believe that a peer-reviewed article would be off by that much.

Zeropointfourpercent of one dollar, for example, is ... well, let's do this: zeropointfourpercent of $10 is 4 pennies. [If I am wrong, I will retract it and re-submit.] When riding my bike, I will stop for a nickel on the ground, but I don't always stop for a penny.

I guess the EPA will now go back in and change the "acceptable exposure to PAH" to fit the "corrected" data.

Oh, yes, here it is already. An expert on PAH says: "the new study shows elevated PAHs near fracking sites—and adds that the compounds can be harmful at any level. “The EPA standards are set at levels that are achievable in our modern (and contaminated) world, and should not be used to imply that any amount is without some danger,” he says. “But it is reassuring that the measured levels do not exceed EPA standards.”

In other words, after lunch, the expert needs to get on the horn, notify the EPA, and get the ball rolling. But, first, lunch.

If nothing else, the original researcher -- responsible for the miscalculations -- got two of his/her studies published. Publish or perish, as they say.

The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt
William Nothdurft with Josh Smith
c. 2002
DD: 567.909 NOT  

For the first part of this "story," go to this link. This morning I was watching Sophia while her mother was doing some errands downtown. After reading a book, etc., she wanted to watch Elmo (Sesame Street). Of course, I have no idea where I might find Sesame Street but we did find Dinosaur Train on PBR which was just as good. Perhaps better. After every 7 minutes or so of cartoon dinosaurs, a real paleontologist comes on -- "Dr Scott" I think he called himself -- and speaks in a grown-up voice with grown-up information about dinosaurs. It is really quite clever.

One of Dr Scott's segments this morning was on flowering plants, and he said exactly what I had read in Nothdurft's book yesterday but did not take time to note.

He noted that stegosaurus never saw a flowering plant. Wow. I never knew.

Stegosaurus is found in rocks in the late Jurassic period, between 155 and 150 million years ago, the western US and Portugal, according to some sources, and flowing plants did not arrive until the Cretaceous period.

Flowering plants were first seen about 140 million years ago:
Flowering plants (angiosperms) evolved about 140 million yeasr ago, during the late Jurassic period, and quickly spread. They dramatically changed the Earth's landscapes, quickly taking over most of the ecological niches. These fast-growing, adaptable plants also gave rise to a HUGE boom in the dinosaur world.
Most of the dinosaurs that have been found date from the late Cretaceous period, when flowering plants were supplying plant-eating dinosaurs (like hadrosaurs) with plentiful and nutritious food. Some Mesozoic Era angiosperms included magnolias, laurel, barberry, early sycamores, and palms. Grasses may have evolved later. Cretaceous vegetation was increasing in density and species diversity as the quick-to-adapt flowering plants radiated throughout the world. 
Let's see what Nothdurft said:
  • epeiric seas: different from oceans in a number of ways; narrower; less space for wind to build up waves; not much of a tidal wave; gradual floor gradient; very placid waters; quiet environment for sediments to be deposited century after century
  • on land: major changes also occurring; up until the Cretaceous, plant life was surprisingly limited and monotonous
  • at the beginning of the Cretaceous: grasses did not exist; there were no flowering plants
  • Mesozoic Era prior to the Cretaceous: limited primarily to conifer, ginkgo trees; cycads, horsetails, and ferns. Lots of ferns.
  • The way the herbivores would have decimated the flora, opened up niches for the first-flowering plants, the angiosperms
  • Advantages of angiosperms: weedy; they grow fast; bounce back quickly after being grazed
  • The angiosperms made it possible for a large and diverse group of herbivores -- the ornithopods -- to proliferate -- especially in North America and China
  • Ornithopods: the "cattle of the Cretaceous"
  • By the late Cretaceous, sauropods began to decline in some parts of the world but remained dominant in Africa; the sauropod discovery by the Bahariya Dinosaur Project was a prime example
The problem: in this area during the time of the Cretaceous, there were three huge meat-eating dinosaurs, and two large plant-eating dinosaurs -- but a) what were the herbivores eating; and, b) where was the missing beach sand?

If I have time, I will come back to that on another day.

By the way, another word: epeiric seas -- inland seas. 
Inland seas, also called epeiric or epicontinental seas, are shallow seas over part of a continent. They usually happen with marine transgressions, when the sea overtops the land.
This is a photo of a graphic at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History, the new dinosaur wing, which we visited a few years ago. It's of the western hemisphere. Note that most of Montana and western North Dakota are smack dab under the "western interior seaway."
By the way, it's easy to keep the non-flowering plants / flowering plants scientific names separate. They are gymnosperms and angiosperms. You only have to remember one. Gymnosperms come from the same Greek word that becomes gymnasiums. Greek gymnasiums where places where naked men wrestled. Gymno is Greek for naked. So gymno-plants are naked plants, or non-flowering plants. At least that's how I keep angiosperms and gymnosperms straight.

Unprecedented Middle East Heat Wave; US Stock Market Hits Intra-Day High Record -- August 11, 2016

Iraqi grid: power-grid failings exacerbate heat wave -- WSJ. I just posted a note about this moments ago, not knowing this article existed.
Thanks to the worst recorded heat wave in Iraq’s history, now in its fourth week, Abu Mahdi may be this city’s happiest man.
From a hole-in-the-wall shop on Baghdad’s east side, Mr. Mahdi repairs air conditioners. His counsel is sought by the powerful and humble. His wallet is bulging. Some customers are so desperate, he says, “they come into my shop, get on their knees, kiss my hand and say, ‘Please come and help me.’ ”
People across the Middle East are suffering under this summer’s historic heat, which has seen temperatures climb above 120 degrees.
To avoid a repeat of the street protests over power outages that erupted last summer, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, in an unprecedented move, has twice given state employees two days off because of the heat.
He also took a small step that no one, not even the post-2003, U.S.-run transitional government, had dared with any state-owned enterprise: He said the government would begin allowing some private investment in power distribution and equipment maintenance.
Under the proposal, the vendor would keep 12.9% of the all fees collected, the rest would go to the government. Announcement of the winning bid is expected by the end of August.
Regardless of who provides Iraqi electricity, it will still come from oil and natural gas.

US Natural Gas

John Kemp tweet:  US natural gas stocks  have risen by just +824 bcf over last 20 weeks compared with a 5-yr average build of roughly +1,250 bcf.

The Market

Close. NYSE --
  • new highs: 208; add Newfield; Pioneer Natural Resources; to the list;
  • new lows: 7
I don't know if I ever thought I would be fully invested on the day the market hit all-time new highs. 

Late-day trading: strong earnings, surge in oil, power Dow to new record. This is really quite something. Think about it. A new record, and you were alive to see it. Who would have guessed back in 1984 when I started investing that we would see a new record for the Dow on August 11, 2016?
"It looks like U.S. markets are going to go higher until my daughter graduates, and she's only 3 years old," said Erik Wytenus, global investment specialist at J.P. Morgan Private Bank in Palm Beach Florida.  
And they call me inappropriately exuberant. LOL. 

Mid-day trading: the market continues to surge, up 120 points. It appears "T" is trading at new highs. NYSE:
  • new highs: 154, including T and TransCanada
  • new lows: 4
Early morning trading, the market surges, up almost 80 points; oil up slightly. NYSE:
  • new highs: 102; including Baxter (a big whoop); Wal-Mart; it looks like XLNX will be hitting a new high, or very close
  • new lows: 3
Forgiving College Debt

My wife, a Hillary Clinton supporter, was aghast to read that the Obama administration has in place a plan to forgive $43 billion in college loans this year (next year?). Aghast. But we had no denominators. We did not have the denominator for total outstanding college loans, and we did not have the denominator for total US debt.

Assuming total US debt is $20 trillion, then $43 billion represents ... drum roll ... 43 (lopping off 9 zeroes) / 20,000 (lopping off 9 zeroes) = 0.215%. Not even half a percent of the total US debt. Some suggest that over the eight years of his administration, the national debt increased $8,795,689,333,049.67. (Yes, the 67 cents is in the official figure.)

Add $43 billion to that number, and we get: $8,838,689,333,049.67. The number hardly changes. Had Obama done this over the past eight years, there would have been a lot to talk about and a lot on the op-ed pages, but the total debt would have risen $8,838,689,333,049.67 vs $8,795,689,333,049.67. I doubt most people would have even noticed. The first figure, an "8" didn't even "roll over." I'm pretty David Letterman and Rachel Maddow would not have noticed, nor would they have cared.

My hunch is that Hillary Clinton could make college debt a center of her social program, starting with current student debt and increasing the program to cover everyone.

I wonder how much the "Solyndra-36" cost us?

Later: for the record, US "college debt" stands at about $1.3 trillion according to some sources. $43 billion / $1.3 trillion = or about 3.3%.

The nice thing about the US being $20 trillion in debt, we get closer and closer to where money no longer matters. Isn't that was Paul Krugman says?

IEA: Oil Market Balancing -- August 11, 2016

Pet peeve: all those 30-second sound bites without a 15-second analysis. This month and next month the 30-second sound bite: Saudi Arabia is pumping at record levels. The 15-second analysis not reported:
  • the actual increase in production is negligible
  • Saudi's total increase in production (and probably more) will be consumed in Saudi Arabia for air conditioning (source: John Kemp, twitter); it happens every year this time; the heat map of the Mideast is currently staggering -- and, no, this has nothing to do with global warming
  • almost all Saudi/Iraqi power comes from gas/crude oil/fuel oil/diesel (source: John Kemp, twitter)
  • Saudi Arabia: 44% of electricity comes from crude oil 
Active rigs in North Dakota:

Active Rigs3370194184199

RBN Energy: Marcellus / Utica takeaway capacity to the Midwest, Canada -- the series continues.

Solar: pivoting away from big US utility projects; looking more like the aluminum siding companies of the 70's.

BNSF / Buffett: Buffett's BNSF dividend is lowest since 2010 as railroad slumps.

Jobs. Jobless claims little changed for second straight week.
  • fell by 1,000 to 266,000 from a revised 267,000 (original report: 269,000)
  • filings have been below 300,000 for 75 straight weeks, the longest stretch since 1970
  • 4-week average: 262,750, up slightly from revised 259,750 (the 4-week average was not provided by the Bloomberg story)
Oil. IEA sees balanced market. One report says that oil production has been running one million bopd below what will be needed, from July to September, 2016. Current data suggests otherwise,b ut that's what the IEA is saying. And if the IEA is saying it, it must be true. Maybe OPEC can call off their September meeting. The Financial Times tends to disagree, saying that supply will outpace demand by at least 100,000 bopd through 2017.

Free entertainment: American Airlines now makes all entertainment free for all. I think they mean the video entertainment.

Ackman watch. Valeant shares plummet; company under investigation. According to this article, Ackman bought Valeant in April, 2015, or thereabouts. On April 15, 2015, Valeant was selling for around $206. Today, Valeant is down almost 7%, trading under $26. I don't want CNBC but if he is still a "regular" talking head on the business shows, one must ask the question, "why?"

Chesapeake Energy to sell north Texas Barnett shale assets. The Oklahoma City-based company said Wednesday it has agreed to end its natural gas gathering agreement with Williams Partners, for which Chesapeake will pay $334 million in cash. Chesapeake has also renegotiated its agreement with Williams for the Mid-Continent area in exchange for $66 million.

Archaeology: site of Zeus sacrifices found?

Meltdown: the next president faces possible ObamaCare meltdown.

Paywalls. I haven't read the article yet, but the headline caught my attention -- newspapers rethink paywalls as digital efforts sputter. I've always wondered about the efficacy of paywalls. With few exceptions, I can always find any article behind any paywall of any of the major media outlets (NY Times, LA Times, etc). Some of this is due to the relationship between Alphabet/Google and the media outlets. But I digress. The point is this: most folks who subscribe to newspapers will probably subscribe to newspapers regardless of digital content, and folks who don't subscribe, won't change their minds because of paywalls. There's simply too much content. We subscribe to one daily newspaper -- the WSJ -- if we didn't subscribe to the WSJ we would get the local daily, The Dallas Morning News. I might read one or two Boston Globe articles every week which is not enough to get me to subscribe. But when I go to the Boston Globe I am blocked by a paywall -- and, of course, I don't see any of their ads. And I don't go to other BG articles that I might otherwise visit, and I dont' see those ads. By putting up paywalls, newspapers are blocking me from seeing their ads. I'll read the linked article later.

Macy's: to close 100 more stores.