Saturday, April 18, 2020

Random Update Of A Very Nice Whiting Stenseth Well In Sanish Oil Field -- April 18, 2020

From an earlier note: October 6, 2019: #17072, another Stenseth well recently taken off line; remains IA 10/19; back on line 11/19; the well:
  • 17072, 2,843, Whiting, Stenseth Trust 11-5H, Sanish, t7/08; cum 723K 2/20; 
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

Random Update Of MRO's Wardner Well In Killdeer Oil Field -- April 18, 2020

I've got too much to do to go through the entire drill, but from this note:
  • September 12, 2019: #36167, 2,662, MRO, Meredith 14-24H, Chimney Butte, t8/19; cum 196K 1/20; [#27074 -- Adamson, back on line 11/19; #26016 -- Schaefer, back on line 9/19; #26015 -- Rebecca, back on line, 10/19; #19626 - Wardner -- back on line 9/19; nice jump in production; 
I will post this well, another exception to Hubbert's theory:
  • 19626, 1,060, MRO, Wardner 24-35H, Killdeer, t5/11; cum 254K 2/20:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

MRO Reporting Some Nice Wells In Reunion Bay -- I Completely Missed These -- April 18, 2020

Sometime ago, in passing, I mentioned that "all" Bakken wells end up on the confidential list at some time or other. At least one reader took exception to that. The reader may be correct. I really don't know, but it is certainly my impression that it is still the exception that a Bakken well never ends up on the confidential list at some time or another.

Of course, it doesn't matter to most of us. It's just an observation.

So, back on August 21, 2019, a reader commented:

The reader suggested that wells #36840 - #36851, inclusive were examples of recently permitted wells that were not on the confidential list.

At the time, I wrote:
August 20, 2019: a reader gave these wells as an example of wells that did not go on the confidential list. I suggested that "all" wells eventually end up on the confidential list at some point. So we will follow these wells to see if they do indeed end up on the confidential list: I believe 36840 thru 36851 would be examples of ones not confidential but permitted recently; in 9/19, some are on DRL status. See comments at this post; 36840 thru 36851.
It's possible I misstated -- perhaps I said (or implied) that all "new" permits were immediately placed on the conf list. If I did, I was mistaken, but it would have been a "content" error on my part. Many new permits are loc permits and don't go conf until later.

So, tonight, completely bored, with nothing else to do, I went back to look at these wells:
  • 36840, conf, Hess, Ti-State-158-95-3635H-9, Tioga,
  • 36841, conf, Hess, Ti-State-158-95-3635H-8, Tioga,
  • 36842, conf, Hess, Ti-State-158-95-3635H-7, Tioga,
  • 36843, conf, Hess, Ti-State-158-95-3635H-6, Tioga,
  • 36844, drl, MRO, Akko USA 44-21H, Reunion Bay, see below;
  • 36845, drl, MRO, Aslak USA 44-21TFH, Reunion Bay, see below;
  • 36846, drl, MRO, Donaason USA 34-21TFH, Reunion Bay, see below;
  • 36847, drl, MRO, Nokelby  USA 34-21H, Reunion Bay, see below;
  • 36848, drl, MRO, Akko USA 44-21H, Reunion Bay, see below;
  • 36849, loc, Hess, EN-VP And R-154-94-2536H-13, Alkali Creek,
  • 36850, loc, Hess, EN-VP And R-154-94-2536H-15, Alkali Creek,
  • 36851, loc, Hess, EN-VP And R-LW-154-94-2536H-1, Alkali Creek,
It turns out that four of the Hess wells did go conf, and I would bet (if I were a betting man) a month's worth of wages the other three Hess wells will eventually on the conf list.

I can't say one way or the other if the MRO wells were ever confidential. My hunch: they were never on the conf list, otherwise I would not have missed these incredible wells.

Regardless the exercise was very rewarding. Look at these incredible MRO wells:
  • 36844, drl, MRO, Akko USA 44-21H, Reunion Bay, extrapolates to 76,872 bbls in a 30-day month:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 36845, drl, MRO, Aslak USA 44-21TFH, Reunion Bay, extrapolates to 48,128 bbls in a 30-day month:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 36846, drl, MRO, Donaason USA 34-21TFH, Reunion Bay, extrapolates to 60,865 bbls in a 30-day month:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
  • 36847, drl, MRO, Nokelby  USA 34-21H, Reunion Bay, extrapolates to 85,458 bbls in a 30-day month:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare

The parent well is still off line:
  • 17966, IA/358, MRO, Jerry Pennington USA 34-21H, Reunion Bay, t6/09; cum 434K 8/19; 
Another well in the immediate area, to the east, also remains off line:
  • 19833, IA/1,458, MRO, Shirley Pennington USA 14-22H, Reunion Bay, t8/11; cum 360K 11/19;
And finally, to the west, this well remains off line:
  • 20530, IA/1,792, MRO, Ella USA 11-16H, Reunion Bay, t10/11; cum 376K 12/19;
Akka, by the way, is the name of a most impressive mountain in Sweden. Aslak is likely Norwegian: used as the Finnish rendering of the Northern Sami name Ásllat, but also a strong Swedish connection.

Flu -- April 18, 2020

I'm clearing out my in-box.

Wuhan flu articles.

First: moving the goalposts -- four reasons it's safe to "open America." I agree with the writer, but it is interesting to note that the writer is an anesthesiologist, perhaps the specialists most hard hit by the virus.

Second: here's how much downstate New York is skewing the United States' coronavirus numbers. The data is staggering. I was aware of this, but did not know to the degree. Much could be said.

Third: this story is being reported "everywhere." If the data and the analysis is/are accurate, and I believe it is, it suggests to me that Trump's initial "hunch" was right on target. This does not mean he did the "wrong" thing in dealing with this issue but it speaks volumes about the CDC and the mainstream media wagging the dog.

Speaking of which, the most inappropriately named federal agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I can think of better names.

Later: overnight, a few more Wuhan flu links came in.

Fourth: half the homeless at Boston shelter tested positive, none had symptoms. See #3 above.

Fifth: purely coincidental. CDC posted job requirement for "advisor to quarantine program" on November 15, 2020, well ahead of the pandemic. Link here. The position was for a fairly low level (by government standards) position, a GS - 9/11, an annual salary ranging from $51K to $93K.

Sixth: update of the Swedish model where the economy was left open. In direct contrast to that of Norway. The fact that we may never know which model is better suggests that Sweden has bragging rights on this one.

Speaking of Swedish models: link here. Does anyone believe that Ella Rose is her given name? Not that it matters.

Seventh: they're reading the blog. PowerLine contributor is doing the same thing I'm doing -- watching TCM during the lock down -- and we both watched Network last night. Incredibly prescient, if a bit hokey. William Holden: from Sunset Boulevard to Network and everything in between. And this time (Network) opposite Faye Dunaway. At the wiki entry, if you are a romantic, read the bit on Dunaway and Mastroianni. Then look up the definition of limerence.


A reader sent me this story.

I replied, not edited:
We live in a very, very urban area, but this is Texas and there are a few "farms" nestled within city limits.

There is a farm about eight acres, I suppose, we drive by almost every day, going to and from something or other.

There are "always" six horses out in pasture on "nice days." I don't see them out and about on hot days.
I can't say for sure, but it seems the six horses change over time. I notice them when they are scrawny, ribs showing, and then later, healthy and fat. I am absolutely convinced the "owner" loves horses and takes in abandoned, sickly horses for whatever reason and then nurses them back to health, and then once back to full strength are sent on -- I have no idea where -- and then he/she brings in six more sickly horses. I can only assume he/she is a real horse lover and this is her/his passion.

The land has to be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) for residential development but it looks like this will remain a convalescent place for horses for as long as possible.

Anyway, time to listen to some Burt Bacharach -- Alexa. LOL.

I simply love Alexa. Without moving from my easy chair, without lifting a finger, I ask Alexa to play "Burt Bacharach" and for hours I will get the "entire" catalogue.

Keeps me company.

Mexican Divorce, Burt Bacharach

Connecting Dots

Dionne Warwick and Burt Bacharach.

From wiki:
While she was performing background on the Drifters' recording of "Mexican Divorce," Warwick's voice and star presence were noticed by the song's composer, Burt Bacharach, a Brill Building songwriter who was writing songs with many other songwriters, including lyricist Hal David...
During the session, Bacharach asked Warwick if she would be interested in recording demonstration recordings of his compositions to pitch the tunes to record labels. 
Warwick was signed to Bacharach's and David's production company, according to Warwick, which in turn was signed to Scepter Records in 1962 by Greenberg. The partnership would provide Bacharach with the freedom to produce Warwick without the control of recording company executives and company A&R men. Warwick's musical ability and education would also allow Bacharach to compose more challenging tunes.
In November 1962, Scepter Records released her first solo single, "Don't Make Me Over,” the title of which (according to the A&E Biography of Dionne Warwick) Warwick supplied herself when she snapped the phrase at producers Burt Bacharach and Hal David in anger. 
From the phrase "don't make me over", Bacharach and David created their first top 40 pop hit (#21) and a top 5 U.S. R&B hit. Warrick's name was misspelled on the single's label, and she began using the new spelling (i.e., "Warwick") both professionally and personally.
But there's more. At least for me.

I've always been fascinated by Jennifer Warnes. She seems to pop up everywhere.

So, now we go over to "Don't Make Me Over" -- over at wiki:
"Don't Make Me Over" is a song written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, originally recorded by Dionne Warwick in August 1962 and released in fall 1962 as her debut single.
The song reached number 21 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number five on the Billboard Hot R&B Singles chart. It was also a top-forty hit in Canada, reaching number 38.
Various covers of the song have been made. Jennifer Warnes recorded a version which reached number 67 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1979.
Don't Make Me Over, Jennifer Warnes

I hear a little of Linda Ronstadt in Jennifer Warnes voice in this particular song. [Wow, someone posted the same comment over at YouTube.]

Someone wrote about Jennifer Warnes: "the incomparable Jennifer ... one of the greatest female singers of her generation."

Wow, I love this blog. This thread all started with a link from a reader about horses and one thing led to another and before I knew it I was listening to one of my favorite singers singing one of my favorite songs. Wow, doesn't this sound like a song Phil Spector could have produced with the Shirelles?

For The Archives -- Spring Snowstorm Shatters Records -- April 18, 2020

From AccuWeather, April 18, 2020:
Despite the calendar reading mid-April and Americans preparing to stow away their winter jackets, winter hit rewind on 2020, dumping record-breaking snow totals on the High Plains region Thursday night (April 16, 2020).
Through Friday morning, that snow turned treacherous in its path towards the East Coast, causing traffic hazards in the Great Lakes region.
In Nebraska, daily snow total records were smashed in cities like Lincoln and Grand Island following Thursday's spring storm. Farther east, by the border of Iowa, numerous areas around Omaha topped 5 inches, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).
The amount of snow was not trivial. 

The cool weather in north Texas persists. I'm getting tired of this long, dragged out spring. North Texas has already broken all records for precipitation this calendar year -- something like 122 years -- I forget the exact number -- but essentially since records were kept -- and that was in March. It's been a long, cold, wet spring.

Crawfish Season

Gol-dang it. I just realized I'm missing crawfish season.  I'll check in with my favorite crawfish restaurant on Monday. For takeout. Their website says they are open for takeout. $5.99 a pound. I really don't care about the price this year.

Amazing Technology

For the archives. I put this in my journal this evening (edited, of course, for the blog):
Still in nationwide lock down. I’m watching “Casablanca” on Turner Classic Movies. Updating my calendar. I see an entry for a “Zoe _________” birthday coming up. Zoe was one year old in 2002. I was TDY, Menwith Hill, Yorkshire, when I met her and her parents. She was adopted. I really, really liked her dad. I doubt he remembers me. I think about Zoe periodically. As a pediatrician I met her once or twice when she was one or two years old. I googled the name, thinking that “Zoe __________” might be a bit unique. And, voila. Wow. Several hits — and all the same person — a preppie at _______________ Prep School in [western] MD. Her dad was in a federal service and it would be likely the family is living/working in the DC area. It appears she is a “star” player on the school’s girls’ soccer team. Tears come to my eyes. It’s so touching to see how things turned out for Zoe. I wonder if she has siblings. I wonder how her parents are doing. I would love to send a note to her prep school to give to her but it’s probably best not. No purpose to be served.
As noted Zoe was adopted. I wish I were less of a romantic; I wear nostalgia on my sleeves, as they say.

Wow, no matter how many times I watch "Casablanca" I never tire of seeing it. It seems I always see something I did not see before.

"We'll always have Paris."

For me, I'll always have Menwith Hill.

Parsing The Recent FERC Ruling On Renewable Energy -- April 18, 2020

See this post.

At the time of the original post, I did not have time to study this. At the time, I did not understand it.

So, time to go through it.

 As I understand it, the story began with the "original" FERC hearing earlier this week.

"Someone" requested a re-hearing, and according to the headline (above), FERC denied a rehearing.

So, let's go back to the original hearing.

From The National Law Review, February 20, 2020 (I have no idea how credible the source is). The article begins:
On December 19, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gob smacked the renewables industry by issuing an order that makes it nearly impossible for most new renewable energy projects in the PJM system to sell capacity into the market. 
Approximately 55 individual parties have moved for FERC to reconsider the order including ten state public utility commissions, no less than five of which have indicated that they may consider pressuring their utilities to withdraw from PJM if relief is not granted.  
And, of course, as noted above, FERC denied a re-hearing.

Next paragraph from the linked article:
  • East Coast affected
  • West Coast (California) may or may not be affected
East Coast:
  • PJM is the intended point of connection for approximately 8800 MW of offshore wind from North Carolina to Maine
  • 55 individual parties negatively affected
  • ruling could prevent these offshore projects from going forward
RTO: regional transmission organization

JPM is an RTO.

Third paragraph in the article:
  • RTOs price capacity through reverse auctions.
This sounds confusing. A regular auction: highest bid wins. A "reverse auction": lowest bid wins. Sort of.

The "bids" or "offers" of the various suppliers of electricity (for example, the offshore wind farms) are stacked and racked based on price.

A line is drawn at the level where the capacity bids below the line equals the capacity required by the RTO.

Those entities below the line are eliminated from contracts for that auction period. Only the entities (e.g., the offshore wind farms) above the line get contracts to supply energy to the RTO.

This is one thing that confuses me -- but I think I understand it: the highest bid in the resulting stack sets the price for all lower bids. Bidders whose offers are higher than the highest bid receive nothing for their capacity.

If I'm reading that correctly, the highest bid is the bid that becomes the bid for all those entities above the line. Understanding it or no, it's not important for this discussion.

Next, fourth paragraph from the linked article. The reverse auction incentivizes a bit of hanky-panky. It behooves holders of high-cost generation to offer prices below the actual costs. That would increase their chances of being "above the line."
"After all, being paid something for capacity is better than being paid nothing" -- which would happen if their bid put them "below the line."
FERC has long required that initial capacity bids be tied to actual fixed costs of the resource (remember: hydroelectricity is really, really cheap; natural gas is really cheap; off shore wind is really, really expensive). This minimum pricing is called the minimum offer pricing rule or MOPR.

But get this: historically the MOPR has NOT applied to renewable energy projects. Say what? Historically? Offshore wind has not been around all that long. Has this all been done under Obama-like administrations?

But I move on.

Fifth paragraph: historically the MOPR has not applied to renewable energy projects. But recent orders have changed that.
In the PJM order, FERC cited the dramatic growth of state-subsidized renewable resources on the PJM system, including uneconomic nuclear and coal generation as well as renewables and offshore wind.
In fact, OSW is leading the way in the growth of renewables in PJM. The 8800 MW of OSW projects under development there compares to the approximately 600 MW of solar and wind resources that cleared the 2021 capacity auction.  
Further paragraphs, but I think I now get it:
In response to this wave of new state sponsored renewable capacity, FERC terminated the exemption for renewables from MOPR pricing and specifically applied MOPR pricing to new renewable energy projects that receive direct or indirect support from state and local governments.
Support has been defined broadly to include all state and local economic benefits for renewable projects, including renewable portfolio standards, mandatory purchase contracts, offshore wind renewable energy credits (ORECS) and even private renewable energy credits.  
As a practical matter, the PJM ruling means that capacity from offshore wind projects cannot clear the PJM capacity market: Absent subsidies, OSW costs are simply too high when compared with the costs of gas-fired peaking turbines against which they will compete. 
Then there is much more -- "a grandfather clause, as it were." 

Some argue that FERC is over-stepping its authority. States are allowed to choose from whom they want to purchase their electricity. If the electorate wants to pay higher prices for electricity to save the world, they should have that right.

So, it sounds as if the states want to pursue this, they can sue FERC -- which would eventually be a US Supreme Court case, I suppose. 

Anyway, to the extent it's clear, I think I understand it. 

Bottom line:
  • FERC ruled that all electricity generators must play by the same rules when bidding in RTO auctions.
  • The FERC may be overstepping its authority -- federal government vs states rights.
Now to post and go back to a comment from a reader who follows this and understands it much more closely than I do. Now I understand what the reader was saying, I agree:
Although there are several components to this FERC/PJM  capacity market auction situation, it might be condensed by describing it as a  state-subsidized subset of electricity generators (specifically the wind boys), having an unfair advantage in the pricing marketplace when competing against the natgas/coal power generators.

It is crucial to future wind projects as they simply CANNOT compete economically with the natgas generators and this directly conflicts with the ongoing "transition" narrative of the starry eyed state government players who continue to mandate electricity generation from renewables.
(This is primarily by fiat by ordering heavily regulated utilities to purchase set - and increasing - amounts of electricity from renewables).

To describe all this chicanery as rank political maneuvering would be stating the obvious, but - since we only have a couple of years left to Save The Planet, over the cliff we must merrily go.

One interesting bit of fallout ... as the political pressure continues to ramp up in favor of the renewables, states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts (part of the ISO, but similar conditions exist there), are chest thumping that they will pull out of these regional, federally regulated electricity consortiums and "go their own way"!!!
That stance is SO falling down funny and it reveals such a staggering degree of ignorance that - hopefully - more rational input will prevail in these matters.

Bottom bottom line, with Trump calling the shots out to 2024, the Age Of Renewables may be starting to recede from the American stage. 
Good riddance.
Another reader wrote:
We both are continually amazed at how New England consistently does everything wrong about energy ... especially New York State.
As you reported in your blog this "review" wasn't the first action. It started in 2012 and it's all about pricing natural gas ... and if a New England natural gas power plant is "necessary", hence Sierra club trying to do everything it can to make natural gas more expensive paving the way for wind.
I had to find an issue that doesn't involve coronairus ... and the attendant civil liberty violations (my convoluted anger management technique). If I find anything really profound I'll pass it along.
Good, bad, or indifferent, I have a much better understanding of what's going on, which makes for a wonderful Saturday evening as I watch Casablanca for the 157th time.

Record Amount Of Oil At Sea -- ZeroHedge -- April 18, 2020

Still under discussion: why did Saudi Arabia empty its onshore storage tanks and store it all offshore? Two possibilities, maybe others:
  • this was the fastest way to flood the world with oil (as they threatened to do), in order,
    • to kill US shale; and/or
    • to protect its market share; and/or,
  • they had to empty their onshore storage to make room for continued production to save their old fields.
I don't know. I think it's fascinating.

If it was the former: to kill US shale/protect its market share, it may yet work; it may not.


But "they" are reporting the amount of oil at sea. From ZeroHedge:
The historic OPEC+ "Mexican Standoff" production cut came and went, and after a very short kneejerk spike higher oil has continued to plunge to historic lows for the two reasons we laid out previously: i) the production cut was not nearly enough to offset the demand collapse of as much as 36 million barrels, and ii) every day that tens of millions of excess barrels are produced brings us one day closer to that catastrophic D-day when oil storage runs out.
Of course, just like not all oil producers are equal - recall Goldman recently predicted that landlocked producers may see oil prices go negative, as they run out of buyers or places where to store the oil, while tanker access to most Brent exporters means that the price of Brent will not drop materially below $20 - not all storage is equal either, and while Cushing and ARA commercial storage is expected to hit full in just a few months at the current rate of net supply, many producers are using water storage as a flexible alternative.
As a result, traders are now storing an estimated record 160 million barrels of oil on ships - double the level from two weeks ago as they seek to tackle a glut of stocks, Reuters reportsas traders have rushed to find storage on land and at sea in what is believed to be the biggest oil glut in history.
 US oil storage capacity.

Gasoline demand in the US.

US crude oil in storage, in days.

Week 16: April 12, 2020 -- April 18, 2020

Top energy story of the week:
Favorite video:
Best news all week:
Biggest non-story of the entire week:
  • Prince Charles and Camilla survive a "cold";
Top international story of the entire week:
Top international non-energy story:
  • Coronavirus
Top international energy story:
Top national non-energy story:
Top national energy story:
Top North Dakota non-energy story:

Top North Dakota energy story:

Geoff Simon's top ND stories (does not include stories posted elsewhere on this page):
  • ND governor extends lock down another ten days; now through the end of April;
  • McLean County state's attorney says the 800-MW wind farm proposal is being used to justify shutting down Coal Creek Station;
  • TR National Park shut down through May 9, 2020 -- lack of restrooms
  • Bakken has not yet reached its low point
  • Sanford medical system to conduct hydroxychloroquine study
  • Watford City puts a hold on $5.2 million in 2020 planned projects
  • Commercial air travel slows to a crawl in North Dakota
  • Dickinson airport to receive nearly $1.1 million in federal money from CARES Act
  • Some of America's oil refineries may be on the brink of shutting production

Advantaged oil:

Natural gas/flaring:
  • Keystone XL work in Montana halted by federal judge