Sunday, April 12, 2020

Focus On Fracking -- Posted -- April 12, 2020

This seems a bit early, but this week's edition of "Focus on Fracking" has been posted. It should be a good one. It begins ...
... oil prices finished lower for the sixth week in the past seven despite an agreement between OPEC & Russia to cut a record amount of oil production, as analysts pointed out the cuts were less than half of what was needed to balance supply and demand in the wake of the global COVID-19 imposed economic shutdown.
"Cuts were less than half of what was needed..." Wow.

"The Deal" is tracked here.

I will be reading "Focus on Fracking" in bed. Good luck to all. I won't be reading e-mail or responding to comments until tomorrow at the earliest.

The Deal -- April 12, 2020


April 14, 2020: spin -- Saudi says crude oil supply could drop by 20 million bopd -- twitter -- obviously trying to support oil prices. No way will crude oil supply drop 20 million bopd. Saudi couldn't even get Mexico to deep cuts by more than 100,000 bopd. I didn't read the linked article over at twitter, but I assume they talked about US shale, etc. 

April 14, 2020: analysis over by Simon Watkins. Consider the source, but there are some interesting observations. For me, the light bulb just went on. Quick: name the country run by a king with a huge fortune in oil. Now, quick, name a country run by a king with a huge fortune that has no military.

Original Post

This is the WSJ report regarding the OPEC+ deal, at this link. I think it's fascinating. Talk about everyone getting hung up on 100,000 vs 400,000 bbls of oil per day (Mexico), and not one mention of the actual production quotas for the other 22 members of OPEC+.

Oh, I suppose that data is in there somewhere, and there will be other sources, but for those who have little time to read each day and whose main source of such news is only The Wall Street Journal ... well, what can I say?

My hunch is that there will be supporting / additional articles in The WSJ  that will break down the specifics of the deal. Whatever.

Just an observation. I honestly don't know what Saudi's production limit is under the new deal but I haven't look very hard. The best I could find in this article:
In addition, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have agreed to cut a combined two million barrels a day above their quota, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said in a televised interview.
Exactly what does that mean? And why is that coming from the Iranian oil minister and not from the OPEC secretary?

Again, whatever.

And then this:
The U.S., Canada, Brazil and the other Group of 20 leading economies that aren’t part of the OPEC alliance will hold back four million to five million barrels a day, OPEC said in a draft press release.
Canada wasn’t asked to impose production cuts on its oil producers, said Sonya Savage, energy minister for Alberta, Canada’s largest oil-producing province. Instead, the decrease will come through market forces, as companies tend to cut production voluntarily when prices drop, she said. 
Say what? Is that a joke, or what? Canada's cuts will come through market forces but the cuts in the US won't? Say what? That would suggest that Lynn Helms (ND) and the Texas Railroad Commission are about to impose limits on Bakken and Permian production, respectively. I wonder what North Dakota senator Kramer will have to say about state-imposed cuts in oil production? Has the US nationalized US oil companies?

How much will Norway cut back? How much will China be asked to cut? China is producing about four million bopd. Is China exempt, as they are also exempt from the Kyoto protocol?


Anyway, for the time being, this will be where I track "the deal."

A Reader Comments On Advances In The Bakken -- Bakken 4.0 ---

Back on April 9, 2020, I posted an update regarding the CLR Weyland wells in Corral Creek.

Shortly after posting that, a reader shared thoughts regarding that production profile, specifically of #23786.

I should have posted the reader’s comments immediately but I wanted to take some time studying the comments before posting. Now that I've had a chance to do just that, here are the comments. Again, read the original post first (linked above). Here is the well and production data:
  • 23786, 691, CLR, State Weydahl 2-36H, Corral Creek; t8/13; cum 381K 2/20;
Halo effect? That dreaded Bakken decline? #23786

PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

Here are the comments from the reader:
That profile from well #23786 (above) may be a good example of how operators are utilizing the elevated, induced underground pressure derived from the injection of millions of gallons of water to 'push' the hydrocarbons towards the wellbore
Over that 8 month period (July 2019 to February 2020) the lessening amount of produced water shows that the original fracturing fluid has - to some degree (I would guess to a large degree) - been maintained underground. 
The little publicly accessible data that I have read leads me to conclude that little/no formation damage is now expected by keeping millions of gallons of water underground for extended periods
The latest iterations (constantly evolving) of the High Viscosity Friction Reducers  (HVFR) may be playing a large role.

Unrelated to the above, I am absolutely fascinated that first EOG and now WPX seem to be having the proppant component at the 19%/17% level of total mass of injected material. [Comment: I've been noticing the same thing.]
This is WAY higher than historical norms.

Couple of speculative musings ensue ...
The HVFR use enables a reduction in water amount with no corresponding dropoff in amount of proppant used. 
Reduced water amount - combined with the 'targeted' staging via Extreme Limited Entry Perforating (XLE) - allows highly controlled frac propagation that is now able to be closely monitored in real time.  
Operators may now be 'encroaching' (expanding?) new fracture complexity into the "outer" areas of parent well fractures using diverters, pump pressures and water volumes so as to not damage the older networks with the new fracturing.

Note ... gas lift seems to be the preferred artificial lift method now in the Bakken with both the traditional vertical portion using new, improved valves for vertical lifting and an additional, entirely new approach that extends tubing-within-tubing to enable gas injections all the way out to the toe which then sweeps the entire 2 mile long lateral with slightly pressurized gas
This sweeping mechanism could - theoretically - sweep up new, unwanted proppant/sand along with the desired liquid hydrocarbons ... aka oil
This would eliminate the chronic problems and limitations of normal Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESPs) due to sand-induced malfunctions.

This last is speculative on my part, but I believe the growing use of gas lift AL is playing a role.

Overall, the Bakken operators may be 'advantaged' with their lengthy operational history in this region alongside the ever present factors of innovation, risk taking, and resiliency.
There is so much in that comment. 

Take a look at these monster wells being reported this week,
I've been noticing this for the past couple of years. Say what you want, anecdotally, the wells in the Bakken are getting increasingly better and better (borne out by the EIA dashboards).
Now, this: starting about six months from now, we should start seeing even better Bakken wells that we've seen in the past year or so. The price of oil, at $20/bbl, WTI  (and it is likely to get worse) means that we are going to see significantly fewer wells being completed, and the wells that will be completed need to be incredibly good wells for operators to remain viable.

I can hardly wait to see the initial production numbers for wells that will be completed later this year. I think they're going to be quite remarkable.

One thing not mentioned by the reader: taking wells off line for 6 to 18 months does not seem to harm Bakken wells; in fact, generally speaking, it appears that Bakken wells taken off line for 6 to 18 months actually return to production quite nicely.

First Reactions -- Following The Deal -- April 12, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine And Wuhan Flu-- April 12, 2020


April 18, 2020: lately I wrote, whatever happened to the hydroxychloroquine story? If it's the silver bullet, one would think we would be hearing more about it. A quick google search suggests .... well, I'll let others sort this one out. Israel apparently puts study on hold; a French study says it doesn't work.
A reader replied that where the hydroxychloroquine trials failed with regard to coronovirus, the reader noted that only hydroxychloroquine was used. In fact, the "hydroxychloroquine" advocates suggest the regimen must include azithromycin (and perhaps zinc).
April 13, 2020: despite my early skepticism, there is more and more evidence that chloroquine really does help fight Wuhan flu. The CDC knew about it since at least 2005. The CDC completely missed it. From the article:
As most know, the media/Democrat politicians/FDA want the use of the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin/zinc combination to be restricted until late in the course of the infection, when the patient’s infection is well-advanced. As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of a anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.
Original Post

Not ready for prime time. Idle chatter regarding hydroxychloroquine. 

This is a throw-away post, nothing to do with the Bakken or with oil. It refers to an article regarding Wuhan flu over at iceagenow. A reader asked me my thoughts on the article. When I read the article, I was a complete skeptic -- not that hydroxychloroquine might work -- but that the mechanism for action has been discovered (seemingly overnight) and that hydroxychloroquine is the silver bullet for which we've been looking. I learned a lot along the way. It's really quite fascinating. I had forgotten a lot since medical school, especially with regard to esoterica associated with hemoglobin.

In a long note like this there will be content and typographical errors. Facts and opinions are interspersed and may be difficult to tell the difference. 

This is the link to the article with this headline: "Covid-19 had us all fooled, but we might have found its secret." Author: "an RN and a Nutritional Biochemist in former times."

The author explains why "azithromycin or Zithromax, works as does the Quinine derivative chloroquine!" The author bases the explanation on another article, at this link, "Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret." The article was apparently posted April 5, 2020, by an author who goes by the pseudonym, "libertymavenstock." Clicking on "people" at that blog/site provides a look at the folks behind the site, I assume, even though that is questionable. Be that as it may.

Two things bother me about the article posted at the second link:
  • the author publishes under a pseudonym; which always concerns me;
  • the article itself, a "scientific" article of sorts, has no links to any other scientific articles (unless I missed them)
It reminds me a lot of the young man in middle school who first suggested we need to give up plastic straws after he telephoned a plastic straw company to find out how many plastic straws are manufactured every year.

Both articles, let's call them the "original article" and the "derived article," are filled with factoids: things that look like facts but are not necessarily factual and in some cases outright falsehoods.

The first factoid that caught my attention and which pretty much is critical for the "theory" to work, from the "original article" and carried forward in the "derived article":
This leads to damage and inflammation, which leads to all that nasty stuff and damage you see in CT scans of COVID-19 patient lungs. Ever noticed how it’s always bilateral? (both lungs at the same time) Pneumonia rarely ever does that, but COVID-19 does… EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
That is 1000% absolutely wrong.

Once I read that, I questioned the entire article. That's a pretty basic mistake. The grammar, punctuation, all caps, etc., are also concerning.

But this is what I find most amazing. I have spent much of the morning looking for articles on the mechanism of action of chloroquine and hydroxycloroquine. Do it yourself. Google it and look at any ten mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientific articles. They all say the same thing: no one knows for sure how chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine works.

There are three major groups of "germs": viruses, bacteria, and parasites. There are others, but these are the ones we usually think of when talking about "germs." Coronavirus is a virus, and malaria is a parasite. "Strep throat" is bacterial.

Among the parasitic diseases, and among all infectious diseases, malaria is one of the most studied. Others would include tuberculosis. Likewise, drugs used to treat those two diseases are among the most studied, including hydroxychloroquine.

A precursor of the drug has been used at least since the 17th century, see wiki.
In 1633, this herbal medicine was introduced in Europe where it was given the same use and also began to be used against malaria. The quinoline antimalarial drug quinine was isolated from the extract in 1820, and chloroquine is an analogue of this. Chloroquine was discovered in 1934 by Hans Andersag and coworkers at the Bayer laboratories, who named it Resochin. Ignored initially, it has been studied, along with malaria, for decades. The eradication of malaria has been a cause célèbre for Bill Gates as just one example. And we still do not know how hydroxychloroquine "works" in fighting malaria.
And that's the second problem. After decades of study, and centuries of being used, "no one" knows for sure how hydroxychloroquine works, and now we have an "RN and dietician" and an unidentified "journalist" who have come up with the mechanism.

Links, hydroxychloroquine, mechanism of action:
If I did not know better, I would suggest "libertymavenstock" is a pseudonym for AOC.

How Chloroquine Works

Most of the scientific articles discuss lysosomes when talking about the mechanism of chloroquine (I use chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine interchangeably). I talked about that at an earlier post, March 21, 2020.

I have not been able to find a peer-reviewed, scientific source for this new theory at the link in the "original article" linked above. I'm sure it's out there somewhere but for the life of me I couldn't find it. I found vague allusions to the theory but nothing explicit.

The Hemoglobin Hypothesis 
The Carbon Monoxide Analogy

Having said all that, what is the basis for the article suggesting there may be another mechanism for the toxicity/severity of Wuhan flu? I will call it the "hemoglobin hypothesis", and it's a pretty good hypothesis. I can't deny that it's very, very possible.

Links suggesting hemoglobin hypothesis:
If the hemoglobin hypothesis is correct, the analogy would be carbon monoxide poisoning. And, yes, if an individual with carbon monoxide poisoning is ill enough to be unable to breathe on one's own, a ventilator is used. However, if caught early enough, carbon monoxide poisoning only requires 100% oxygen by mask, and not by ventilator.

Carbon monoxide poisoning produces symptoms much like those described in COVID-19.

But COVID-19 also causes viral pneumonia -- direct damage to the lung tissue. And carbon monoxide poisoning, if not treated in time, kills the victim before one develops (chemical) pneumonia.

In medicine, researchers live and die by Occam's razor.

It's possible that the "hemoglobin hypothesis" has some validity, but it cannot explain everything. And I still come back to the problem that for decades, modern science, has not been able to describe (or at least agree on) the mechanism of hydroxychloroquine, and all of a sudden overnight, we have the "explanation."

Bottom line for me:
  • there is much more to Wuhan flu than just an analogy to carbon monoxide poisoning (the hemoglobin hypothesis);
  • the coronavirus clearly causes tissue damage, lung disease, and viral pneumonia, not seen in carbon monoxide poisoning;
  • the hemoglobin hypothesis could explain why ventilators have not been a chokepoint in the treatment of Wuhan flu yet, at least not yet in the US;
  • the admonishment by "libertymavenstock" the "RN/dietician" is ill-placed. Intensivists (ICU specialists) use ventilators only when indicated; it is not a trivial decision to place an individual on a ventilator; 100% oxygen by mask is more than sufficient in most cases of carbon monoxide poisoning
  • what frustrates me most: tens of thousands of cases severe enough to result in hospitalization and there have been no numbers presented by the CDC: how many of those cases were treated with hydroxychloroquine and outcome; I've not been following the news or listening to the daily task force briefings, so I may have missed something; but it seems pretty clear that we should have something by now;
  • does anyone even know if the UK PM, Boris Johnson, received hydroxychloroquine? I would be shocked if hydroxychloroquine had not been used, but I don't know.
For me, the silver bullet remains:
  • a vaccine; or, failing that,
  • a medicine that interrupts the virus's ability to glom on/enter human cells in the first place. 
Treating the oxygen-starvation problem buys one time but that is neither prevention nor cure.

EOG Will Report Four Huge Wells This Week -- April 12, 2020

Results of two other wells were posted earlier.

The third and fourth wells that will be reported by EOG this week:
  • 36411, 2,783, EOG, Clarks Creek 46-0706H, 33-053-09056, Antelope, fracked 8/28/19- 9/18/19; 11.5 million gallons of water; 84.4% water by mass; friction reducer, 0.05019; t10/19; cum 230K 2/20;

    PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 36410, 1,639, EOG, Clarks Creek 45-0705H, 33-053-09055, Antelope, fracked 8/26/19 - 9/28/19 11.7 million gallons of water; 85.21% water by mass; friction reducer, 0.6062:

    PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

It's Unanimous. Twenty-Three "Members" Agree to Cut Production By 9.7 Million BBls; Mexico Gets Its Way; Saudi Blinked -- April 12, 2020


April 22, 2020: link here, downloaded this date:

March 13, 2020: I just love this blog ... LOL --

Later, 8:37 p.m. CT: see first comment regarding my "mixing up" petroleum and crude oil.  The graph I often post, the one below breaks out "petroleum" and "natural gas."  See comment.

This graph shows Saudi Arabia crude oil production from this source. For the last several years, Saudi Arabia production has run about 10.4 million bopd (the one significant dip was due to a missile attack on its fields/terminal, September, 2019.

Later, 1:58 p.m. CT: I have posted this graphic many, many times, most recently May 4, 2019, a year ago. The boe axis is at the right in the graphic below; the heavier shade is petroleum; the lighter shade is natural gas; the total is boe. If 8.5 million bbls is accurate, that is absolutely incredible. In "modern history" -- since the beginning of the shale revolution -- Saudi Arabian oil (correction: see comment: petroleum) production has never been less than 10.5 million bopd. And it's not going to be enough.

Later, 1:56 p.m. CT: smoke and mirrors. Saudi energy minister says Saudi Arabia will cut production to 8.5 million bopd.

Later, 1:43 p.m. CT: let the "spin" begin. First bit of spin:
  • Mexico: "We stood our ground; we agreed to a 100,000-bbl cut."
  • Saudi: "Mexico agree to a 400,000-bbl cut. They will cut global exports by 100,000 bbls and will export 300,000 bbls to the US, effectively taking 400,000 bbls off the global market."
  • Anyone who understands heavy oil and light oil will sort this out immediately. Bottom line: Mexico did not waver; held its ground; won. Saudi quibbled over 300,000 bobd (global production / global demand, around 100 million bopd) prior to demand destruction. Demand destruction conservatively estimated to be 20 million bopd, perhaps as much as 30 million bopd for the next six months.
  • MBS unable to have Mexican negotiators thrown into house arrest.
Later, 1:39 p.m. CT: rumor -- Mexico may "leave" OPEC+ this summer. Maybe the better word: "disinvited." As in:
"In the future, Mexico will be disinvited to OPEC+ meetings."
Later, 1:38 p.m. CT: let the spin begin --

Later, 1:36 p.m. CT: it looks like I was correct. Mexico got its way. Saudi blinked:

Original Post
Note: I do not know Spanish. I took two years of Latin in high school, and four years of German (high school / college). I may have lost something in translation. If this is important to you, go to the source, and/or find a good translation:

The screenshots:

I have yet to read the story, but back-of-the-envelope:
  • OPEC+: goal: a cut of 10.0 million bbls to include a 400,000-bbl-cut by Mexico
  • Mexico: refused; only wanted to maintain a 100,000-bbl-cut
  • subtract 300,000 from 10.0 million and one gets 9.7 million bbls
  • did Mexico get its way; did Saudi Arabia lose -- willing to sign anyway;
  • we'll wait for the story and the translation to see

Initial Production Data For Wells Coming Off The Confidential List This Next Week -- April 12, 2020

The wells:
  • 36412, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 47-0706H, Clarks Creek,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35632, conf, MRO, Waldorf USA 12-16H, Four Bears,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35631, conf, MRO, Eager USA 12-16TFH, Four Bears,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 33621, conf, Slawson, Gunslinger Federal 6-1-12TFH, Sand Creek, 
  • 35817, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 11T, Alger,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35123, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30B, Haystack Butte,
  • 33810, conf, BR, CCU Gopher 8-2-15TFH, Corral Creek,
  • 33623, conf, Slawson, Gunslinger Federal 5-1-12H, Sand Creek,
  • 35122, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30E, Haystack Butte,
  • 36411, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 46-0706H, Antelope,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 36410, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 45-0705H, Antelope,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35630, conf, MRO, Four Bears USA 13-16H, Four Bears,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35121, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30A, Haystack Butte,
  • 35818, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 10T;
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35704, conf, Hess, SC-Hoving-154-98-1003H-8, Truax,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
  • 35819, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 9BX, Alger,
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
DateOil RunsMCF Sold
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 35016, SI/NC, BR, Lillibridge 3A MBH-R, Blue Buttes, no production data;

Wells Coming Off The Confidential List This Next Week -- April 12, 2020

Monday, April 20, 2020: 27 for the month; 27 for the quarter, 282 for the year:
36412, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 47-0706H, 
35632, conf, MRO, Waldorf USA 12-16H, 
35631, conf, MRO, Eager USA 12-16TFH
33621, conf, Slawson, Gunslinger Federal 6-1-12TFH,  

Sunday, April 19, 2020: 23 for the month; 23 for the quarter, 278 for the year:
35817, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 11T
35123, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30B,
33810, conf, BR, CCU Gopher 8-2-15TFH
33632, conf, Slawson, Gunslinger Federal 5-1-12H, 

Saturday, April 18, 2020: 19 for the month; 19 for the quarter, 274 for the year:
35122, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30E, 

Friday, April 17, 2020: 18 for the month; 18 for the quarter, 273 for the year:
36411, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 46-0706H, 
36410, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 45-0705H,
35630, conf, MRO, Four Bears USA 13-16H, 
35121, conf, XTO, Prairie Federal 31X-30A, 

Thursday, April 16, 2020: 14 for the month; 14 for the quarter, 269 for the year:
  • 35818, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 10T;
  • 35704, conf, Hess, SC-Hoving-154-98-1003H-8;
Wednesday, April 15, 2020: 12 for the month; 12 for the quarter, 267 for the year:
  • None.
Tuesday, April 14, 2020: 12 for the month; 12 for the quarter, 267 for the year:
  • 35819, conf, Oasis, Oasis Meiers 5692 11-19 9BX,
Monday, April 13, 2020: 11 for the month; 11 for the quarter, 266 for the year:

  • 33278, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 41-0805H, 
Sunday, April 12, 2020: 10 for the month; 10 for the quarter, 265 for the year:
  • None.
Saturday, April 11, 2020: 10 for the month; 10 for the quarter, 265 for the year:
  • 33279, conf, EOG, Clarks Creek 42-0805H, 
Friday, April 10, 2020: 9 for the month; 9 for the quarter, 264 for the year:
  • 35016, conf, BR, Lillibridge 3A MBH-R, 

Tea Leaves: EIA Was Correct -- OPEC+ Will Fail To Agree On Production Cut Deal -- Mexico Will Be Blamed -- April 12, 2020


April 12, 2020: never mind. A deal was announced.

Original Post

We'll see.

Since April is already here and the surge has already begun, there's no urgency to get a deal done today. MBS could easily call the whole thing off. After all, it wasn't his idea in the first place to hold the meeting. Maybe the US senators telephoning OPEC+ during the meeting backfired.

Exploding heads at eleven.

I'll be off the net for awhile.

Week 15: April 5, 2020 -- April 11, 2020

Top energy story of the week:
Favorite video:

Best news all week:
  • UN may run out of money next month
Biggest non-story of the entire week:
  • Sussex Royals said to buy Malibu house from Mel Gibson;
Top international story of the entire week:
Top international non-energy story:
  • Wuhan flu;
  • Boris Johnson released from hospital;
Top international energy story:
Top national non-energy story:
Top national energy story:
Top North Dakota non-energy story:
  • ND 1804 east of Williston, under construction; from Williams County Road 42 to 1.25 miles east of Lunds Landing; complete reconstruction of the highway and includes passing and turning lanes;
  • Equinor planning oil conditioning facility near Trenton, ND (southwest of Williston)
  • Liberty will lay off 204 employees in the Bakken
  • CLR to cut production by 30%;
Top North Dakota energy story:

Geoff Simon's top ND stories (does not include stories posted elsewhere on this page): pending

500K Wells: