Mandaree Wells (EOG, WPX, Enerplus)

Mandaree wells:
21332, 1,189, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 20-149-94, 320 acres; t9/12; cum 97K 5/17;
18908, 1,565, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 20-149-94, 320 acres, t9/10; cum 173K 5/17;


22232, PNC, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 9-149-94,
22233, PNC, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 9-149-94,
18927, 815, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 9-149-94, 640 acres t8/10; cum 171K 5/17;

18464, 1,424, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 10-149-94, 640 acres, t9/10; cum 186K 5/17;


18411, 977, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 4 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/10; cum 194K 5/17;
21003, 580, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 4 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/11; cum 131K 5/17;
26769, 526, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 4 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/14; cum 93K 5/17;
26768, 2,054, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 4 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/14; cum 190K 5/17;


23934, PNC, EOG, Squaw Creek, NENW 17-149-94,
18594, 105, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 17-149-94, 640 acres, t9/10; cum 169K 5/17;

26778, IA/704, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 3 5-149-94, 640 acres, t9/14; cum 156K 10/18; went inactive 10/18; remains off line 5/19;

26777, 940, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 3 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/14; cum 155K 5/19;
26779, 1,014, EOG, Squaw Creek, Lot 3 5-149-94, 640 acres, t10/14; cum 174K 5/19;


19004, 1,440, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 7-149-94, 640 acres, t11/10; cum 196K 5/19;
32514, 1,355, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 7-149-94, 1280 acres, t12/16; cum 271K 5/17; see this post;

32512, 1,505, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 7-149-94, 1280 acres, t2/16; cum 173K 5/17;
32513, 1,910, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 7-149-94, 1280 acres, t12/16; cum 252K 5/17;


18697, 927, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 15-149-94, 640 acres, t8/10; cum 243K 5/17;

18774, 526, EOG, Squaw Creek, NWNW 16-149-94, 640 acres, t10/10; cum 161K 5/17;


20601, 1,059, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 4-149-94, 320 acres, t5/12; cum 132K 5/17;
19426, 1,207, EOG, Squaw Creek, SESE 4-149-94, 320 acres, t3/11; cum 156K 5/17;


28209, PNC, EOG, Squaw Creek, SWSE 5-149-94, monitoring


28982, 823, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 1 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t9/15; cum 203K 5/17;
28983, 2,222, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lt 1 30-150-93, 1280 acres, 45 stages, 10.1 million lbs, t9/15; cum 553K 5/17;
19604, PNC, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 1 30-150-93,
28984, 1,849, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 1 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t9/15; cum 233K 5/17;
28981, 1,642, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 1 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t9/15; cum 238K 5/17;
19603, 332, WPX, Reunion Bay, Lot 1 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t5/11; cum 499K 5/17;

33320, 2,903, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t10/17; cum 16K first 11 days;
33321, 2,615, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t11/17; cum 7K over first 8 days;
33323, 2,724, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t11/17; cum --
33822, 1,569, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t5/18; cum 203K 5/19;
33823, 1,778, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t5/18; cum 268K 5/19;
33824, 2,434, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t5/18; cum 307K 5/19;
33825, 2,486, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t5/18; cum 260K 5/19;
33826, 2,264, WPX, Spotted Horn, Lot 5 30-150-93, t5/18; cum 225K 5/19;

28875, 1,138, WPX, Reunion Bay, NWNW 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t11/14; cum 279K 5/17;
28874, 367, WPX, Reunion Bay, NWNW 30-150-93, 1280 acres, t1/15; cum 139K 5/17;

20320, 375, WPX, Squaw Creek, SESW 14-149-94, 1280 acres, t5/12; cum 305K 5/17;


33135, 1,591, Enerplus, Spotted Horn, SESW 32-150-94, Mandaree 150-94-32C-29H TF, t2/18; cum 228K 5/19;

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

Some, not all. These are mostly WPX Mandaree wells. EOG Mandaree wells are to the west, in Squaw Creek (off the graphic):

Why I Love To Blog -- July 29, 2017

Remember all the outrage when President Trump pulled out of the "Paris climate accords." LOL

Does anyone remember this, from 2013? The Brits effectively pulled out four years earlier. The (London) Guardian reported in 2013: UK's climate change adaptation team cut from 38 officials to just six.

The number of people employed by the government to work on the UK's response to the effects of climate change has been cut from 38 officials to just six, triggering accusations that David Cameron's promise to be the greenest government has been abandoned.

I can't make this stuff up.

And with all the effort required for Brexit, it's unlikely these six folks are doing much more than a) answering telephone calls; b) writing press releases; and, c) talking to mum.

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

Favorite Story of The Day

Steve Wynn's $10 million loss on baccarat.

This article will provide a bit more color, a bit more breadth and depth to the short Fortune article.

I've never played baccarat; I wonder if this is something Sophia and I might enjoy? LOL. 

The Dots Are Starting To Connect Faster Than Expected -- July 29, 2017

Updates

August 6, 2017: A reader sent me a fascinating New York Times article: "Under Trump, coal mining gets new life on US lands."

I thought I had already posted a similar story at an earlier post. I will update that post and bring it here -- it's that fascinating to me. There are some important "things" converging:

• first, the switch to global EVs cannot occur without coal; at the end of the day, EVs are coal-powered cars. Period. Dot
• second, a third Obama term (aka the Hillary debacle) would have stopped the coal resurgence in its tracks
• third, Trump has been in office ... T+196 days
• fourth, the press is fascinate with presidential tweets -- the really big stories are happening in his departments -- like the Department of Interior; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security

From The New York Times' article:

The Obama administration, he said, had become intent on killing the coal industry, and had used federal lands as a cudgel to restrict exports. The only avenues of growth currently, given the shutdown of so many coal-burning power plants in the United States, are markets overseas.

“Their goal, in collusion with the environmentalists, was to drive us out of the export business,” Mr. Reavey said.

Even with the moves so far, the prospect of coal companies operating in a big way on federal land — and for any major job growth — is dim, in part because environmentalists have blocked construction of a coal export terminal, and there is limited capacity at the port the companies use in Vancouver.

Competition from other global suppliers offering coal to Asian power plants is also intense.

But at least for now, coal production and exports are rising in the Powder River Basin after a major decline last year.

There's plenty of coal in non-federal land for now. 

Original Post

 

When you  -- or rather, if you -- read the previous two posts on coal, just think how much has changed.

First, the links to the previous two posts (over time, things will get lost):

• did anyone see this coming?
• EU caught in bold-faced lie?

Now, back to the original thought -- just think how much has changed.

First, President Trump sees the hypocrisy of the "Paris accords" and does the right thing by letting the world know that the US will no longer participate in such nonsense.

Second, the Obama war on coal has been reversed, in less than six months. I find that absolutely incredible. And it's just getting started.

Third, it is becoming clear that European reliance on coal (or natural gas) is going to increase rather than decrease as forecast ... and it appears it's going to happen much faster than we expected.

Fourth, and this is really interesting ... does anyone remember this post:

• France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy (German and US engineers hold that card) and, apparently, would rather become overly dependent on Qatar natural gas instead

" ... France plans to close a significant number of nuclear plants, saying it doesn't want to become overly dependent on nuclear energy..."

That was buried in a very long note. I honestly did not understand that. It made no sense. "Overly dependent on nuclear energy"? What was that all about? Nuclear energy was France's "only hope." If they shut down nuclear plants, they have only two choices: CO2-emitting natural gas or huge CO2-emitting coal. Wow.

Now, it becomes clear. In that first linked article, this little gem on which Reuters did not elaborate:

France had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbors to rely more heavily on coal. 

Yes, that was in the Reuters article.

Of course, it begs the question: what caused the series of nuclear power plant outages in France? Russian hacking? Homer Simpsons (plural)? Aging plants and no money (or political will) to modernize? 

And note that the nuclear power plant outages didn't affect only France but also the neighboring countries that rely on that energy.

So, when France cuts back on nuclear energy, they also cut back on the surplus electricity being sold to other countries, and .... well, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to connect the next dots.

Six months into the Trump presidency.

We've only just begun.

Don't forget this: EVs run on coal. Period. Dot. Or maybe natural gas where natural gas is in abundance, but in most of the world (and in most of the US) EVs run on coal. Connect these dots:

• England is a net energy importer (or very nearly; some winters England has come within 48 hours of running out of coal; January 13, 2017: Europe close to running out of coal, natural gas, energy due to cold snap caused by global warming)
• France had to increase coal imports because of a series of nuclear power plant outages
• neither England nor Europe has plans for any expected change in home-grown energy production (France bans fracking; I can't foresee a fracking revolution in Yorkshire)
• EVs run on coal (not crude oil)
• France and Britain have both said they will ban gasoline cars by 2040
• if they don't have enough coal to power their countries now, imagine what happens when they go to coal-powered cars

Even forgetting about the electrical grid and charging infrastructure that will be required, it appears that no one has really thought any of this through.

And finally, just so we don't forget, the UK plans to phase out all coal by 2025. From the Torvald Klaveness post:

The biggest looser (sic) this year in terms of negative growth in coal imports is without doubt the UK.

Total coal imports in first half-2016 of 4.9Mt is down a massive 71% from the 16.9Mt imported in the same period last year. The U.K.’s taxation system is disfavoring coal compared to gas and the UK government has committed themselves to phase out coal by 2025. We therefore expect the UK volumes to continue to be very low going forward. There are seven remaining coal-fired power plants in the UK today.

That was written less than a year ago (the writer only had data through first half of 2016). What happened since then:

United Kingdom (aka Great Britain, includes England): 175% increase in US coal shipments  

Torvald finished his October 29, 2016, post with this:

However, the positive news from a seaborne trade perspective is that the majority of import cuts are already behind us. The current low base means that any further fall in import will only have a marginal negative impact on global trade.

Wow, not only "kinda wrong" but really, really wrong. 

I track "Europe at a tipping point" as one of "The Big Stories."

EU Spokesperson Caught In Bold-Faced (Bald-Faced) Lie? -- July 29, 2017

Updates

July 30, 2017: I was somewhat concerned that I was incorrect in the original post; it's hard to believe that a EU spokesperson would be so cavalier with facts when they are so easily checked these days. But see first comment; much appreciated. The reader also provides this link:

https://s1.postimg.org/faz3droun/Captura_de_pantalla_1326.png

It's important to note that the graph at the link is the EU total (all 28 countries which would include Great Britain; Great Britain skews the data to some extent because it is unique in trying to displace coal with natural gas where the EU in general has not made the same commitment (at leas to the same extent).

Original Post
 

Where is Snopes when we need the fact-checking service? In this Reuters article:

Nicole Bockstaller, a spokeswoman at the EU Commission's Energy and Climate Action department, said that the EU's coal imports have generally been on a downward trend since 2006, albeit with seasonable variations like high demand during cold snaps in the winter.  

The rest of the article did not seem to support that statement, so where was the fact-checking?

Here is the fact-check over at TorvaldKlaveness (for some reason, the writer only includes the first eight months of each year, through August):

Not only is the trend clearly upward since 2006, but look at this:

Total imports into the EU (excluding the U.K.) totaled 188Mt in 2015, the second highest import on record, only beaten by the 196Mt imported in 2008. However, imports in the first 8 months of 2016 have started on a much weaker note, down about 10% from the same period in 2015.

"... down about 10% from 2015..." LOL. Comparing 2016 with a record-setting year. Why didn't the writer compared 2016 to 2004? Or to 2006? Or to 1010?

I guess there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The writer excluded the UK in the graph perhaps because that country was an outlier -- not because coal was displaced by wind/solar, but rather because coal was displaced by natural gas (see the linked article at Torvald Klaveness).

Based on the data coming in for 2017, it appears that 2016 was an outlier for the EU also; the amount of coal being imported by Europe has already surged the first six months of this year.

But as a reader pointed out, the EU does not count burning wood as contributing to CO2 emissions because wood, they suggest, is a renewable resource.

And some folks think President Trump is mentally challenged. 

From Reuters, Did Anyone See This Coming? Making America Great Again -- July 29, 2017

This article has so many story lines. I'm glad that Reuters was able to pick up on perhaps the most important one:

U.S. coal exports have jumped more than 60 percent this year due to soaring demand from Europe and Asia, according to a Reuters review of government data, allowing President Donald Trump's administration to claim that efforts to revive the battered industry are working.

The increased shipments came as the European Union and other U.S. allies heaped criticism on the Trump administration for its rejection of the Paris Climate Accord, a deal agreed by nearly 200 countries to cut carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal.

The previously unpublished figures provided to Reuters by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed exports of the fuel from January through May totaled 36.79 million tons, up 60.3 percent from 22.94 million tons in the same period in 2016. While reflecting a bounce from 2016, the shipments remained well-below volumes recorded in equivalent periods the previous five years. 

Wow, talk about EU hypocrisy. 

Additional data points:

• United Kingdom (aka Great Britain, includes England): 175% increase in US coal shipments 
• France: doubled its US coal shipments

France? What happened: the country had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbors to rely more heavily on coal.

Overall exports from US:

• to Europe: 16 million tons in first five months of 2017 vs 10.5 million in same period last year (the increase in the amount imported by Germany is striking; other unlinked sources)
• to Asia: 12.3 million tons vs 6.2 million tons in y-o-y comparison

The article includes this:

Trump had campaigned on a promise to "cancel" the Paris deal and sweep away Obama-era environmental regulations to help coal miners, whose output last year sank to the lowest level since 1978. The industry has been battered for years by surging supplies of cheaper natural gas, brought on by better drilling technologies, and increased use of natural gas to fuel power plants.

His administration has since sought to kill scores of pending regulations he said threatened industries like coal mining, and reversed a ban on new coal leasing on federal lands.

President Trump has been in office barely six months, T+190 to be exact (six months plus 10 days).

Again, this is a Reuters article; not a press release from the White House.

The Pronghorn Member, Bakken Formation (MIssissippian-Devonian)

In the geology portion of file reports, the geologist will occasionally mention the various lithofacies of the Pronghorn Member of the Bakken Formation. This is a bit of background. A huge "thank you" to Don for sending me the link.

The Pronghorn, from GEO News, July 20, 2017. Ichnology Applied to the Pronghorn Member, Bakken Formation (Mississippian-Devonian). This link will open a PDF on your desktop: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2017Summer/Ichnology%20Applied%20to%20the%20Pronghorn%20Member%20Bakken%20Formation.pdf

I did not note the ichnology; if interested, go to the source, linked above.

History:

• formally proposed by Julie A LeFever and others in 2011
• defined as the strata underlying the Lower Member and overlying the Three Forks Formation
• had previously been included in the Three Forks and referred to as the "Sanish sand"
• significant unconformity at the top of the Three Forks section
• lithologies within the Pronghorn section are mappable and consistent with those observed within the Middle Member

Location:

• located throughout the Williston Basin
• divides easily into proximal and distal bed
• proximal bed primarily in the southwestern portion of the basin
• distal portion is more centrally located
• proximal beds are associated with production

The geology:

• Three Forks Formation
• an alternating sequence of apple green and tan dolomudstones and claystones
• Pronghorn Member
• Bakken Formation
• can be divided into five (5) lithofacies, in ascending order from A-E
• focus of this paper: middle section B of this member

A. Basal Sandstone

• lowermost sandstone lithofacies
• fine- to very fine-grained quartz sandstone
• difficult to identify with certainty on wireline logs

B. Dolomitic Mudstones with Storm Beds

• upper portion of the interval: dolomitic mudstone with thicker storm beds of very fine- to fine-grained quartz
• the upper portion of the interval becomes significant when examining production
• although the porosities are similar throughout the interval, the upper portion of the lithofacies appears to have better permeability than the underlying portion

C. Lime Mudstone

• thin, medium brown-grey mudstone to siltstone

D. Limestone

• a medium grey, nodular-bedded limestone
• represents an open marine environment
• again, difficult to identify on wireline logs

E. Silt

• the uppermost lithofacies has been previously referred to as the "Bakken silt" and is possibly the distal equivalent to the proximal lithofacies -- the sandstone, storm beds, lime mudstone, and limestone
• organic values (TOCs) are significantly less than the overlying Lower Member of the Bakken formation

Lower Member of the Bakken

• a dark brown to black organic-rich shale
• the Lower Member was deposited in a restricted marine setting allowing for the stratification of the water column and the development of anoxic bottom waters

Relationship of Facies to Production

• minor changes in the depositional environment of the "B" beds appear to have an effect on production; although porosity over the section is consistent, the permeability decreases from the upper section to the lower section
• the silt interval of the Pronghorn should negatively affect production
• however, the silt portion performs better as a reservoir because of the higher percentage of oil saturation to total fluids and therefore produces less water

The Political Page, T+190 -- July 29, 2017

Bullet train, California: California Supreme Court rules for opponents -- The Washington Post. The "bullet train" must comply with California's strict environmental regulations. Ruling 6 -1. Huge setback for Jerry Brown, et al. The ruling came in a lawsuit involving plans to introduce freight trains on a Northern California rail line but the ruling will most assuredly affect the "bullet train." Jerry Brown had insisted that the "bullet train" would not have to comply with the state's strict environmental laws but could follow the federal government's less strict rules. And so it goes. The "bullet train" saga is tracked here.

Range battle:

• Chevrolet Bolt: 238 miles
• Tesla Model 3: first released version, 220 miles; more expensive version, 310 miles; 20 - 30 minutes to recharge even with fast chargers;
• Toyota: announces, expects to be selling by 2022; supposedly would be able to re-charge in minutes; switch in strategy? had touted hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles and plug-in hybrids; now wants to add EVs to lineup; will begin mass-producing EVs in China as early as 2019; range not mentioned in short article

McDonald's
Warren Buffet visits the restaurant every day for breakfast and never spends more than $3.17. From a documentary at the link (date unknown): "Every morning he tells his wife: "Either $2.61, $2.95, or $3.17." And she puts that amount in "the little cup" next to Buffett in his car." Most likely a 1973 AMC Gremlin.  I am told that his first wife is now deceased; remarried. Buffett's age: 86. McDonald's for breakfast; Coke for lunch and dinner; Dairy Queen for dessert. Hopefully he stays away from white bread and processed cheese which some say are bad for one's health. As for McDonald's and me: I never spend more than $2.17 for breakfast: coffee and one hash brown. I never ask for the senior discount on coffee but occasionally a McDonald's employee remembers, bringing the $1.00 cup of coffee down to 50 cents.

Geico Rock Award
Another 2017 nominee. This time Nicholas Casey over at The New York Times, with this headline: As Venezuela prepares to vote, some fear an end to democracy. If I did the math correctly, a yearly subscription for print and electronic New York Times is $325 (without discounts; first year half-price deals) for these kinds of stories.

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

Cleaning The Roomba