Election 2016 -- December 19, 2016

Updates

July 23, 2017: the cultish Hillary worship continues to fascinate me. Cupcakes, fruitcakes, just can't get enough of Hillary.  Even Newsweek is unable to move on. At least they call her a loser. They forgot to mention: fraud, grifter, felon.

April 6, 2017: LOL. Hillary blames misogyny for her lost to Trump This from The Chicago Tribune back on November 21, 2016: want to blame women for Trump's win? Start with Hillary Clinton.

"White women sold out the sisterhood and the world by voting for Trump," one Slate headline read. A former communications director for the Clinton campaign recently told MSNBC that "internalized misogyny" led white women to support Trump.

Should progressives really want to find out the reason Clinton lost, however, it will require them to crawl out of their safe spaces and realize this is the sort of senseless liberal blame-shifting that tempts even members of #NeverTrump to don a "Make America Great Again" hat.

If anyone wants to blame women for Clinton's loss, they ought to start with Hillary Clinton.

Clinton repeatedly misled the public about the circumstances of her off-the-books email system and became the first candidate in history to be under FBI investigation while campaigning to be president. That's her fault.

Clinton, essentially, positioned herself as the anointed inheritor of President Barack Obama's third term instead of crafting her own identity in an obviously anti-establishment year. She ran on all the policies Republicans opposed in previous elections that led the GOP to win record numbers of state legislative chambers, governors' races, as well as control of Congress. That's her fault.

Clinton never stepped foot in the state of Wisconsin, even though it's home state to the Republican national committee chairman, the well-liked GOP speaker of the House, and a governor who beat the labor unions in a terribly contentious right-to-work battle.

According to NBC News, Trump spent 50 percent more time in battleground states in the last 100 days of the election. That's her fault.

April 6, 2017: Hillary "blames everyone and everything but herself" for her huge lost. Story everywhere; this was not the best article, but the only one I have right now. She does not mention:

• that she did not campaign in Wisconsin, a critical state, that went for Trump
• that she had one campaign event three times / week when Trump was having three events / day
• that her husband, a disbarred lawyer and prior president met on the tarmac with the US attorney general to discuss their grandchldren
• that she had a fair amount of baggage, starting with Benghazi

On top of all this, incredibly poor timing: the interview and the story occurred the very day President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria following a chemical attack there. Her interview becomes part of the trash bin of history.

Original Post

1. "Faithless" electors. Hillary was even less well-liked by her party than Trump by his party -- by four to one.

This is pretty funny, when all is said and done. And it was never mentioned on MSNBC this evening. I will be curious if it's mentioned on "Morning Joe" in the a.m. I can hardly wait; I've already got my alarm set.

For all the talk about "faithless electors" and all that pressure -- including death threats -- to get Trump electors to vote for anyone other than Trump, it turns out almost three times as many Hillary electors than Trump electors "defected."

Again, almost three times as many Hillary electors than Trump electors "defected."

I knew folks generally did not like Hillary but I did not know it was that bad.

In addition, there were three additional Hillary electors who attempted to defect, but two were replaced with Hillary electors, and the third eventually saw the light and changed his/her vote. In all there were at least eight Hillary defectors to two Trump defectors, or four times as many Hillary defectors as Trump defectors. 

Wow. 

How many times  has Hillary lost now? Two earlier elections and then lost three times in 2016.

The New York Times noted the "record number of defectors" but hesitated in making it clear that the record was set because of the Hillary defectors. Wow.

On a percentage basis it's even worse:

• Trump: 2 of 306 electors were "faithless" = 0.654%
• Hillary: 8 of 232 electors were "faithless" = 3.45%
• and, it's even worse, three of Hillary "faithless" electors voted for a GOP "candidate" 

2.  Post-mortem.

• CNN passes debate questions to Donna Brazile, and Ms Brazile passes questions to Hillary [Update, April 6, 2017: this turned out to be true; Donna Brazile admitted and apologized.]
• Hillary speaks publicly about "deplorables." Podesta has a long list of deplorables in his e-mails.
• Obama says he was aware that Podesta was a subject of phishing but never bothered to tell Podesta. The only way that Obama would have known that would have been if the FBI told him. The NY Times says the FBI left a message over at the DNC that their e-mail account had been compromised, but the DNC "help desk" was less than helpful. 
• Everyone will point fingers at everyone else, but MSNBC summed it up pretty well today: Hillary ran a lousy campaign; she had no message; Americans like narratives and she had no narrative; she averaged about one campaign stop to every eight stops by a self-funded opponent; her opponent made seven stops, seven speeches in the last 18 hours before the election; the only thing on Hillary's schedule the day before the election was a music concert; Hillary did not visit the state of Wisconsin once during the election; once she connected fracking with the lead in Flint's water supply, she could never return to Michigan; and that stance on fracking cost her Pennsylvania

3. Landslide. Trump refers to his electoral win as a landslide. MSNBC begs to differ. Considering that everyone -- including MSNBC "knew" that Hillary was going to win, even if Trump won by a single electoral vote, it would have been seen "huge" by his supporters, and maybe even his opponents. But winning with 306 votes to 232 when everyone thought he would lose, is a landslide in the mind of the man on the street. And in the minds of Trump and most of his supporters.

4. Reality. Trump did better than expected in every demographic except along the southern California coast. Even with outright cheating, Hillary could not win Michigan: Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office. Thirty-seven percent more ballots than folks who actually showed up to vote and no one at the Federal Election Commission seems concerned. 

5. Observation. George Will made this observation. Obama is the most loquacious president in modern history. He asked a panel of four journalists if any of them could remember one -- just one -- memorable line made by Obama. No one could think of any. I thought of -- "If you like your doctor, you can keep our doctor." Or, "I set a red line at Syria using chemical weapons."

6. The Russian job. It is obvious that both parties want to divert Americans' attention from all the real problems with this elections and they will do this "blaming the Russians." This will get lost in some committee.

7. Trump is celebrating his third win over Hillary. 

Request For Assistance From A Reader -- December 19, 2016

Disclaimer: this is a long note. There are likely to be factual and/or typographical errors. This is my opinion only. It's how I "see" things. I may be completely wrong. If this information is important to you, contact professional assistance.

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

Updates

December 20, 2016: see first comment. The reader brings up the issue of communitization. For more on that, one might to start here. But again, if we are getting to this level, one needs professional advice. Again, I would assume a good landman could point folks in the right direction. If not, go to the trust department of one's bank and ask for suggestions. 

Later, 9:30 p.m. Central Time: I think we're working too hard at this. Every well stands on its own. Forget about "overlapping." Forget about other wells, no matter how many wells you have.

Simply take the well you are interested in. Take that well, and take out the lease you signed for that well.

Your royalty for that well = (net mineral acres / spacing unit size) * (bbls of oil produced) * (price per bbl of oil) * (royalty rate).

Your lease will tell

• you how many net mineral acres you have;
• the spacing unit size; and, 
• the royalty rate

The NDIC provides monthly production for every well; and that information is available to everyone free of charge at the NDIC site. The monthly Director's Cut will provide a ballpark figure for the price oil is selling for.

"Mailbox money" for an existing well in a 1280-acre drilling unit will not be affected by a new "overlapping" 2560-acre unit, if that makes sense. Likewise, "mailbox money" for an existing well in one 2560-acre unit will not be affected by a new "overlapping" 2560-acre unit that includes sections in the existing 2560-acre unit. Each well stands on its own; each well is defined by the NDIC permit and by the lease.

Original Post

 

Over at the "Discussion Group" someone asks an interesting question: Can someone point me to some resource that describes how mineral interests are to be handled when two overlapping 2560 acre spacing units are established?

This is an important question because from the graphic below, one can see how the Bakken is covered with 2560-acre spacing units and overlapping 2560-acre units.

I will throw out my two-cents worth to get the discussion going and then open it up to those that have actually had experience.

I don't have any minerals so I am not speaking from experience. But I've followed the Bakken long enough to have a pretty good idea how this works. If I'm wrong, I would definitely appreciate if someone would point out  how I'm wrong.

The most important thing to understand is this: each well stands on its own. It is not affected by neighboring wells or other drilling units from a royalty point of view.

In a 2560-acre unit (overlapping other drilling units or not overlapping other drilling units -- does not matter).

A 2560-acre drilling unit is a four section unit. It can be of several different configurations:

• a square;
• a stand-up (four sections, all in a line, vertically)
• a lay-down (four sections, all in a line, horizontal)
• L-shaped (various orientations)

For simplicity, let's say the 2560-acre unit is comprised of sections 1, 2, 11, and 12.

Four sections = 2560 acres.

If a mineral owner controls any acreage in any of those four sections, that mineral owner will participate in any royalties generated from any well permitted for that 2560-acre drilling unit. It does not matter where the well is sited inside the drilling unit, or even outside the drilling unit.

What counts is the specific acreage permitted in the permit application, generally identified by sections or part of sections.

So, back to the example: sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 in any given township.

If a mineral owner controls ten acres in section 11, the mineral owner will get royalties based on 12 acres of the 2560 acres.

If a mineral owner controls 60 acres in section 12, the mineral owner will get royalties based on 60 acres of the 2560 acres.

Most horizontals in the Bakken are still about two miles long. Therefore, for illustrative purposes, let's say Whiting has a well sited in section 13 (to the south of section 12) and plans to run the horizontal from section 13 (not part of the 1, 2, 11, 12 - overlapping 2560-acre drilling unit) through sections 12 and and 1 to the north. If the royalty owner has 10 acres in section 2, that royalty owner will participate in the Whiting well.

If the well produces 25,600 barrels in the first month, the royalty owner will get royalties on a ratio based on 10/2560 (ten acres controlled by the mineral owner; the well is on a 2560-driling unit).

(10/2560) * 25,600 = 100 bbls.

Let's say the company clears $35 / bbl. Then those 100 bbls netted $3,500.

Go back to the lease one signed with Whiting. If the royalties were 3/8th, then 3/8ths of $3,500 = $1,312. 50.

Bottom line: one can sort this out without worrying about any other wells, any other drilling units, etc.

To repeat:

• identify the 2560-acre drilling unit 
• a mineral owner controlling any acreage -- no matter how small -- any where in that drilling unit, will participate in a well that is spaced in that drilling unit on a proportional basis, based on the number of acres controlled by the mineral owner

If there is another horizontal running through sections 1 and 12 but on the 1280-acre drilling unit comprised of sections 1 and 12, then to participate in that well, one must control / own acreage in section 1 or 12 or both.

It took me a long time to figure this out but once it's figured out, it's really quite straightforward.

Finally, back to the original question by the reader. What about two overlapping 2560-acre units? Doesn't matter. Same thing applies. Simply forget about other wells and other drilling units. Just identify the 2560-acre unit; determine if you have any acres in that 2560-acre unit; if you do, you will participate in the production of any well placed in that spacing unit.

I think this is where the problem lies: if a mineral owner already "has" a well in a 1280-acre unit, let's say, sections 12 and 1; and, then a 2560-acre well is drilled which includes the existing well in section 12 and 1, does the mineral owner collect royalties from that 2560-acre unit from both wells? My hunch is "No." But someone else will have to answer that. I still think that each well "stands on its own merits, on its own permit. If the mineral owner has ten acres in section 12, the mineral owner will collect royalties from the existing well on a 10/1280-ratio; and will collect royalties from the new well on a 10/2560-ratio. 

If I'm correct, it's easy to visualize; hard to articulate. 

If I'm wrong, someone will have to explain to me the way it works. 

My explanation is in line with what an experienced landman has provided in his book Royalties Within Reach.

Forget about other wells.  Pay attention to one well at a time. It does not matter if you have one well "straddling" two overlapping 2560-acre units. Look at the permit and lease.

Royalty = (net mineral acres / spacing unit size) * (bbls of oil produced) * (price per bbl of oil) * (royalty rate).

The usual disclaimer holds: I don't own any mineral acres. I don't have any experience with minerals. It is very likely I am wrong. I am hoping that folks with experience can tell me if I'm wrong, and I'm wrong, how I'm wrong. 

Serious piece of advice I've heard from many, many folks: if you have questions like this, it suggests that you are participating in more than four wells. If one is participating in more than four wells in the Bakken, one is now an "oilman." One needs professional advice by this time. Any good landman can refer you to lawyers in this field.

Active Rigs In North Dakota Up To 41 - December 19, 2016

Active rigs:

	12/19/2016	12/19/2015	12/19/2014	12/19/2013	12/19/2012
Active Rigs	41	64	182	188	187

Two wells coming off confidential list Tuesday:

• 29558, SI/NC, Statoil, Patent Gate 7-6 2H, Sakakawea, no production data,
• 32138, SI/NC, EOG, Ross 42-0915H, Alger, no production data,

Seventeen (17) permits renewed:

• MRO (5): a Coburn permit, a Bobby Lee permit, both in McKenzie County; an Alvina permit; a Whitney permit; and, a Hillesland permit, all in Dunn County;
• Slawson (4): a Bazooka Federal permit in Mountrail County; two Atlantis Federal permits in Mountrail County; a Slasher Federal permit in Mountrail County;
• Hess (4): forur En-Madisyn permits in Mountrail County;
• WPX (2): two Joseph Eagle permits in Dunn County
• Lime Rock Resources: a Kenneth Stroh permit in Dunn County
• Petro-Hunt: a Setterlund permit in Burke County

Eight (8) producing wells (DUCs) reported as completed:

• 29081,1,830, WPX, Helena Ruth Grant 33-34HW, Reunion Bay, t12/16; cum --
• 29083, 1,709, WPX, Helena Ruth Grant 33-34HX, Reunion Bay, t11/16; cum --
• 29084, 1,900, WPX,  Helena Ruth Grant 33-34HY, Reunion Bay, t11/16; cum --
• 29085, 2,557, WPX,  Helena Ruth Grant 33-34HC, Reunion Bay, t11/16; cum --
• 30427, 1,778, Statoil, Ruth 28-33 4TFH, East Fork, t11/16; cum --
• 30431, 3,256, Statoil, Ruth 28-33 3H, t11/16; East Fork, t11/16; cum -- 
• 30653, 1,755, WPX,  Helena Ruth Grant 33-34HT, Reunion Bay t12/16; cum --
• 32289, 2,491, Statoil, Cheryl 17-20 1H-R, Banks, t11/16; cum --

Denbury transfers about four pages worth of wells to Scout Energy Management.

In The Military We Always Referred To This As "PPP" -- December 19, 2016

From SeekingAlpha:

• Sempra Energy's SoCalGas is urging customers to cut natural gas use to help reduce the risk of possible gas and electricity shortages due to it says is severe cold weather throughout the U.S. southwest
• the notice, issued Sunday night, came as the utility continues to have only limited access to fuel in its giant Aliso Canyon gas storage facility following the massive methane leak a year ago
• in addition to residential customers, SoCalGas tells non-core customers, including refineries and power plants, that they may receive a notice to curtail service
• California agencies have said SoCalGas could have a tough time meeting a forecast peak demand of 5.2B cf/day on the coldest days this winter without Aliso Canyon 

This happened a year ago, folks. In the military we called this "PPP."

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

Flashback

These two articles were posted about the same time.
NPR.
Business Insider.

Random Look At Production Change Month-Over-Month By Operator In The Bakken -- September, 2015/2016; The Red Queen Efffect -- December 19, 2016

The following table was based on data previously posted on the blog. In previous posts, I posted the same information but at one post I had the September, 2015, data; and, at another post, I had the September, 2016, data. But to the best of my recollection, I never put the data side-by-side, comparing the change year-over-year by operator.

I had the September 2015 data for Denbury and Liberty Resources  but not their 2016 data so I did not include those two operators in the table.

Again, the usual disclaimer. I put together original spreadsheets together fairly quickly. I did not triple-check the data. I'm not even sure I double-checked some of the data. There are a gazillion places where mistakes could have been made. I did this for my own benefit, for the archives. Do not quote me on any of this. If this is important to you, go to the sources which have been previously posted.

OPERATOR	CHANGE YOY 2015 - 2016	CRUDE OIL SEPTEMBER 2016	CRUDE OIL SEPTEMBER 2015
CLR	-28%	2,736,305	3,783,108
HESS	-23%	2,734,712	3,538,188
Whiting	-32%	2,723,465	4,008,393
XTO	-6%	2,200,708	2,335,885
Statoil	30%	2,072,393	1,590,051
BR	-10%	1,903,339	2,120,916
MRO	-18%	1,474,297	1,794,554
EOG	-12%	1,438,153	1,636,947
Oasis	-16%	1,434,268	1,706,976
QEP	-12%	1,371,969	1,567,345
HRC	-15%	862,910	1,020,754
SM Energy	11%	804,187	722,835
WPX	-16%	738,884	884,117
Slawson	-22%	674,734	867,786
ERF	1%	637,140	630,284
Newfield	-19%	519,787	638,196
Zavanna	-6%	375,447	400,847
Triangle	-21%	275,629	348,277

I was reminded to do this y-o-y comparison after reading this quote from COP's 2016 analyst day presentation:

At last year's Analyst Meeting, we thought we needed 12 to 13 rigs to hold this production [unconventional output] from these three areas flat. We now estimate that off the low point in 2017 we could hold production with only six rigs -- half as many rigs -- and we could grow production about 20% in these three areas by running about 15 rigs. These are the kinds of changes that allow us to hold our production flat for just $4.5 billion of capex per year.

That's a pretty startling comment. This has to do with COP's activity in its unconventional plays, the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian. COP clearly stated that the engineers thought they would need 12 to 13 rigs to hold production flat year-over-year, but new data showed that COP could hold production flat year-over-year with only six rigs. Wow.

Assuming all things otherwise equal, if production remains the same year-over-year with half as many rigs, one of two or three or more things, or a combination of these things, must be occurring:

• the geologists are getting better and better at locating "tier 1" spots
• operators will concentrate on "tier 1" spots in 2017 and reserve "less good" spots for the out years
• roughnecks, geologists, and technology are getting better at keeping the horizontal in the seam
• the newer rigs are more effective / efficient producing oil (for example, reaching TD more quickly)
• less down time for rigs moving between wells
• completion techniques improving
• decline rates "improving" (for many of the same reasons noted above)

The interesting thing is that just one year earlier, the COP engineers and geologists thought they would need twice as many rigs to maintain production.

Again, all things being equal, might hunch is that in calendar year 2015 and calendar year 2016, operators were concentrating on "tier 1" locations. They are likely to concentrate on "tier 1" locations through 2017. If accurate, then we are closer to comparing apples to apples -- comparing 2015 to 2016 to 2017 all with an emphasis on "tier 1" locations.

We'll never know what COP "saw" or "changed" to determine that they could maintain production with half as many rigs as originally thought. If one assumes COP was concentrating on "tier 1" locations in 2016, that eliminates a huge variable explaining why COP needs half as many rigs as originally thought.

For newbies: several operators are suggesting that EURs are increasing from 750K to 900K (currently) and moving toward 1.5 million boe. It is also said that "half" of the EURs is generally recovered in the first five to nine years.

Reason #47 Why I Love To Blog -- Back To Bowman And Cattle -- December 19, 2016

Two days ago I posted a link about the upcoming Bowman, ND, livestock auction, scheduled for January 9, 2017. It's a big, big deal.

It was such a big deal that I actually sent a note to a WSJ staff reporter suggesting an idea for the Journal.

Lo and behold, completely independent of that note, the WSJ has an article on livestock auctions. Incredible. It was apparently posted by WSJ a couple of days ago, but it's in the print edition today.

The article begins:

Unruly trading of cattle futures is leading to a revival of live auctions, as ranchers look to bring robust pricing data to the market and guide understanding of supply and demand in their industry.

Cattlemen trade futures, or contracts to buy or sell cattle at a given price on a future date, as a form of insurance on their borrowings to feed hundreds or thousands of animals at a time.

In the past year, values of cattle futures contracts have swung wildly, from near-record highs to six-year lows. A nearly one-third drop in the price of cattle futures through the fall of 2016 has slashed ranch incomes and prompted investigations into the source of the volatility.

Background:

The lack of public bartering and price transparency in the cattle industry is one major source of the market’s problems.

At present, the predominant way of selling cattle is via private production contracts between feedyards and the four big U.S. meatpackers. So-called formula contracts price cattle ahead of sale based on the benchmark price independent cattlemen will get in the cash market, plus or minus premiums and discounts.

So where does that lead us?

Some feedyard operators now are experimenting with live auctions, returning to doing business in an open cash market. They want to generate new public price information and slow the supply of previously committed cattle to slaughter each week.

And, that, of course, takes us back to the Bowman, ND, livestock auction, January 9, 2017.

This Would Not Have Happened On Trump's Watch -- December 19, 2016

This is what happens when a US president is anti-oil; inexperienced negotiating business deals; afraid of international confrontations; etc., etc. From Platts:

Russian and Japanese companies Friday signed a number of memoranda and agreements on cooperation in hydrocarbons development during the first visit to Japan in 11 years by a Russian president.

The agreements included joint exploration offshore Sakhalin, technological and financial collaboration in oil, gas and LNG, and established a mutual fund for such projects.

The documents -- 23 of them energy-related -- signed in the presence of President Vladimir Putin and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, include three Japanese companies joining Rosneft in hydrocarbons exploration offshore Sakhalin, expanding LNG partnership with Gazprom and Novatek, opening a credit line for Yamal LNG plant and setting up a mutual fund, among other agreements.

With a total of more than 80 projects outlined and signed off, the collaboration entered a level "unprecedented in the history of Russia-Japan relations," Abe said in a briefing following the signing ceremony in Tokyo, adding the countries can have "a win-win economic partnership."

With Moscow's turn to Asia in search of investors in light of western sanctions targeting the country's energy sector among other areas since 2014, Japan has been conspicuously absent from new deals, while companies from China and India signed numerous agreements to enter the Russian upstream.

Ties with Japan have been complicated by a long-lasting territorial dispute over the four Kuril Islands, as well as by Japan joining sanctions, even if in the form of milder restrictions not preventing its companies from taking an active role in oil exploration and production in Russia.

Actually, I'm being a bit harsh on the incumbent. This is a win-win for everyone. Japan no longer claims any of Sakhalin, so this is quite a big deal for Japan. But, then, of course, it begs the question: sanctions on Russia? What sanctions? One would have thought Japan was an ally.

And, of course, as the US pulls away from global warming policies under the new president, there will likewise be a snowball effect as other nations realize that without the US taking the lead, they cannot afford to go it alone.

Maybe I'm making too much of this or maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there or connecting apples and oranges, but the headline story caught me attention. I'll throw it out there but won't spend much time on it one way or the other. But I would rather see Abe making deals with ExxonMobil and Chevron than with Putin. Just saying.

Wouldn't it be great for the United States to have a "rex tillerson" negotiating business deals with the rest of the world? 

The Electoral College Meets Today -- December 19, 2016

Note: these are links that might cause problems for some browsers. I don't know. I have no reason to say that but when blogger makes it difficult to "save" something I've posted, it raises a "red flag."

You can find "your own" site by googling 'electoral college live streaming December 19, 2016.'

Schedule.

Live streaming here.

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

The History Page

Ivory Vikings: 

The Mystery of the Most Famous Chessmen in the World and the Woman Who Made Them 

Nancy Marie Brown

c. 2015 

And, because it's been so much fun, I will continue. I posted notes from the introduction of this book, and then notes from the chapter on bishops and then notes from the chapter on the rooks. They were the most fascinating pieces on the chess board, as far as history goes. 

But it's been more fun than I expected, so let's look at another chapter. This time ... the queens.

In the Viking Age, the queen moved only one space per turn, and only on the diagonal. Interesting, huh? And there was a reason given for that: "Women are so greedy that they will take nothing except by rapine and injustice" -- from a 13th century sermon. The queen was the weakest player on the board, even weaker than the king.

Arabic sets, at the time, had a vizier, not the queen, at the king's side. Then, the queen was kept close to home ... until .. "she went mad ... acquiring the sweeping moves of the modern game: any number of spaces, in any direction.

I wonder how that evolved. I don't recall the answer, if, indeed, an answer was given. Will there be a reference to Joan of Arc. Let's see, as we turn the page, to page 112.

It was not until 1497, when Isabella of Castile ruled Spain and its New World colonies, does a treatise on chess recognize the queen piece as we have come to know her in the modern age.

So, did Isabella inspire the "mad" queen? Nope, there are poetic verses back to 997 AD that suggest the queen has been placed next to her king.

The poet's verses come from Byzantium where kings and queens were equals. [It's interesting how often Byzantium and I are crossing paths this month.] The queen was Queen Theophanu, wife to King Otto of Byzantium (you know, the Ottoman Empire). She negotiated, at the time of her marriage, that she would be his equal. 

Otto died first; Theophanu continued to reign alone for another six years, ushering in the age of reigning queens, the 10th century. 

It is not known exactly when the "modern" queen arose, but it would have been at different times in different places. 

The rise of the chess queen, from the weakest piece on the board to the strongest, parallels three social trends, according to the author:

• the cult of the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, became popular in the 11th century;
• the Christian doctrine of rex isustus, concurrently, changed the concept of kingship and queenship (newly charged to be monogamous); primogeniture caught on; the queen became, first and foremost, the mother of the true prince; and,
• she presided over the royal household 

A nice discussion of the valkyries: battle goddesses, sent by Odin, the supreme Norse God, to fetch slain heroes to Valhalla or engage the enemy on the battlefield. 

And that's where I will quit taking notes today. I will read the rest of the chapter without taking notes.

Electoral College VotesToday -- December 19, 2016

Aleppo: according to hosts at MSNBC "Morning Joe" Obama's legacy will be viewed through the Aleppo unfiltered lens. Period. Dot. It all connects back to him. By the way, on another note, there seems to be a huge weight lifted off the shoulders of all the folks around "Morning Joe's" table (with a couple notable exceptions). It seems this crew is finally saying what they have wanted to say for the past several years but were not allowed. For the first time, I hear "honesty" with regard to their analysis of President Obama and his foreign policy decisions, and very, very balanced with regard to PEOTUS. That would be Trump, assuming Electoral College doesn't stage a coup.

Sand. Saudi Arabia, with great fanfare, announces it has just taken delivery of its first wind turbine (announced 9 minutes ago -- about 6:26 a.m. Central Time). Yes, one wind turbine. Wiki notes that North Dakota has twelve wind farms -- not twelve turbines, but twelve wind farms. And wiki admits the list is incomplete. The #1 problem for US helicopters flying combat missions out of Saudi Arabia during Gulf wars? Very, very fine gritty sand that got into everything, including rotors. Dust/sand and solar panels is a major challenge but being worked; that problem will pale in comparison to rotors and sand. Memo to self: google status of Saudi's one wind turbine one year from now.

Planes. Airbus -- first jets to Iran within weeks; Boeing -- deal with Boeing, preceded by months of regulatory delays, has only just been signed. Or as the Carpenters would sing, "we've only just begun."

Presidential campaign poll: before the Comey letter, Hillary polled 40.0%; after the Comey letter came out, Hillary polled 40.2%. An inconvenient truth.

Press conference: "I told Putin to 'cut it out' after DNC hack" -- President Obama. McCain: "I'm sure Putin quit hacking as soon as Obama told him to quit."


Shootings: quiet in Chicago overnight? At "Breaking News" right now --

• 20 items; 4 of those 20 items have to do with shootings in the US
• Memphis (one dead); Monaca, PA (gunshots heard); Houston (shooter opens fire inside night club, one dead); Corpus Christi (one wounded after gunshot); Kent, WA (triple shooting overnight; 1 woman dead)
• it must have been a quiet night in Chicago -- not one gunshot reported over at "Breaking News" 

Later. I wrote the previous note ("quiet in Chicago overnight"). It turns out I was correct. LOL. The graphic below is Chicago shootings.

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

Back to the Bakken

Active rigs:

	12/19/2016	12/19/2015	12/19/2014	12/19/2013	12/19/2012
Active Rigs	40	64	182	188	187

RBN Energy: stock levels whipsaw the propane market.

U.S. propane inventories rose by an impressive 55 million barrels (MMbbl) during the spring/summer/fall of 2014, and the mild winter of 2014-15 left propane stocks at well-above-normal levels the following spring. Another impactful inventory build—53 MMbbl—occurred during 2015’s March-to-November stock-building season, leaving propane stocks at a record 104 MMbbl as the freakishly mild winter of 2015-16 started.

But propane inventories grew much more slowly through the spring/summer/fall of 2016, due in part to rising exports, and—while stocks are high as this winter begins—even-higher exports and the possibility of real winter weather raise the specter of an especially big drop in stored volumes. In today’s blog we begin a series on the significance of propane inventory levels with a look at why propane stocks rose so much in the 2014 and 2015 stock-building seasons.

Some data points:

• To sum up 2014, growing supply outran demand (despite a big assist from exports), and stocks built by an average of 225 Mb/d from March through October 2014.
• Moving forward another year, during the 2015 stock-building season, total propane supply averaged 1,831 Mb/d­­—a whopping 552 Mb/d higher than during the 2011 season. On the demand/export side, product supplied during the non-winter months was about flat with 2014 at 1,048 Mb/d, although for different reasons.  
• To sum up 2015, the same thing happened again: growing supply again outran rising exports, and domestic demand was flat, resulting in a 53-MMbbl stock build.
• The 20-MMbbl difference between a big stock-build year like 2015 (53 MMbbl added to inventory from end of winter to start of winter) and a more typical stock-build year like 2011 (35 MMbbl) may seem like a lot (and it is). But when you look at it from a stock-build-per-day perspective—and you factor in the magnitude of propane demand and the much bigger role that exports have taken on—you can see how quickly things can change.

Then, RBN does the math.

A contributor over at SeekingAlpha also does the "natural gas production and storage forecast for 2017." I have not read the article, nor did I even look at who wrote the article.