Three Wells Coming Off Confidential List Over Weekend -- Hess With Two Nice Wells -- January 8, 2024

Locator: 46486B.

WTI: $71.80.

Tuesday, January 9, 2024: 9 for the month; 9 for the quarter, 9 for the year
39996, conf, Ragnar Exploration, Reardon 1-20H,
39928, conf, Neptune Operating, Fritz 20-29-32 2H,
39927, conf, Neptune Operating, Fritz 20-29-32 3H,

Monday, January 8, 2024: 6 for the month; 6 for the quarter, 6 for the year
39929, conf, Neptune Operating, Jacobson 17-8-5 3H,

Sunday, January 7, 2024: 5 for the month; 5 for the quarter, 5 for the year
39930, conf, Neptune Operating, Jacobson 17-8-5 2H,

Saturday, January 6, 2024: 4 for the month; 4 for the quarter, 4 for the year
39025, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-2833H-2,
39024, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-2833H-3,

**********************************
The Wells Of Interest

The wells:

• 39025, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-283H-2, Ray,

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	11-2023	30	10841	10836	22713	31176	30976	200
BAKKEN	10-2023	30	11768	11813	23177	26245	25954	291
BAKKEN	9-2023	30	12509	12496	25749	24241	23944	297
BAKKEN	8-2023	28	16463	16322	47405	37632	37173	459
BAKKEN	7-2023	25	26110	26002	32845	27597	27101	496

• 39024, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-2833H-3, Ray,

Pool	Date	Days	BBLS Oil	Runs	BBLS Water	MCF Prod	MCF Sold	Vent/Flare
BAKKEN	11-2023	30	9966	9945	25694	26513	26329	184
BAKKEN	10-2023	29	9948	9995	25107	22468	22222	246
BAKKEN	9-2023	30	10986	10898	29685	22509	22248	261
BAKKEN	8-2023	22	9340	9264	30224	15938	15680	258
BAKKEN	7-2023	24	16019	15953	56550	38022	37696	326

*****************************
RBN Energy

RBN Energy: high court ruling in "Chevron Deference" challenge could upend energy regulations.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments January 17 in a pair of cases that are poised to capsize the so-called Chevron Deference, a 40-year-old legal doctrine that provides a key foundation for modern administrative law. It’s a big deal – big enough that we’re willing to wade into a little bit of legalese to help make sense of it. So strap in because in today’s RBN blog, we’ll explain what the Chevron Deference is, why it’s worth knowing about, how it applies to two cases that could alter its application, and how a ruling that limits or eliminates the doctrine’s usage and application could transform energy industry regulation.

Let’s start with some background. Under our Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress legislates by passing laws (Article I), the Executive Branch issues regulations to execute and enforce those laws (Article II), and the courts interpret them (Article III). The federal agencies that make up the Executive Branch are often referred to as “creatures of statute.” This means that their authorities to regulate are limited to the powers delegated to them by Congress — no more, no less. But the extent of that delegated authority is not always black and white. Laws are often lengthy and complex, and void of important details. This is largely out of necessity — it would be impossible to craft legislation that addressed every possible situation or future development — but also by design, as Congress has typically operated under the presumption that statutory law should set frameworks and standards, with individual agencies being best equipped to handle the details, given their subject-matter expertise and ability to respond quickly to changing conditions.

The gray area between what Congress intends and what the agency actually does is where the Chevron Deference comes into play.

Way back in 1984, in a case known as Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council (aka “Chevron”), the Supreme Court considered Clean Air Act regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defining the statutory term “stationary source.” The NRDC had challenged the EPA’s interpretation, which treated all pollution-control devices in a single industrial or power plant as one “stationary source,” which made it easier to install new control equipment without having to recertify the whole thing under much tougher “new source” requirements if the changes weren’t increasing emissions for the plant. The high court approved the EPA’s approach, writing that when a court reviews an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers, the court must first determine whether Congress “has spoken to the precise question at issue.” If Congress did speak directly to the question, the statutory language must be followed because the courts and agencies must “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Thus, if the agency’s interpretation is consistent with that expressed intent, the interpretation is valid. If not, the agency’s interpretation is not valid. This analysis is now called Chevron Step 1.