ND Oil Production To Surge -- Lynn Helms -- July 7, 2019

From Geoff Simon this week:

North Dakota crude oil production remained steady in the month of April, and the state's top oil regulator says that will likely continue until additional natural gas processing infrastructure comes on line later this year.

Lynn Helms, director of the Department of Mineral Resources, said even though oil numbers are steady, natural gas production continues to grow, challenging producers to build facilities to capture and process all the gas. Helms said a lot of construction is happening this summer and fall, which he expects will allow the state's producers to get back into compliance with the North Dakota's 88% gas capture target.

Helms said once the natural gas processing infrastructure is in place, he expects the state will see a surge in oil production, pushing it close to the country of Norway, which produces more than 1.6 million barrels per day.

If North Dakota was a country, it would currently rank 17th in the world in production.

At the start of the boom, Bentek suggested the Bakken could/would/should produce 2.2 million bopd.

Later, see comments below. I had not visited "Peak Oil Barrel" in a long, long time. From the linked article in the comments below:

North Dakota is on an 8-month plateau. No one expected this. Does this mean North Dakota has peaked? There is little doubt that Eagle Ford has peaked. Will North Dakota be the second major shale basin to peak? That was through April, 2019.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it was mentioned years ago that after the "boom," the Bakken would move into the "manufacturing" stage.

US Shale Set For 16% Growth In 2019 -- That's This Year -- May 22, 2019

It may be interesting to take a look at this research again:

• why the price of oil is likely to remain range-bound for the foreseeable future (five years)

I say that because of this Rigzone article today: US shale set for 16% oil growth in 2019.

I find that incredible. There are not many industries in which a product grows by 16% year-over-year, and this is in an industry in which the product is over-supplied.

I simply find this incredible. It speaks volumes.

One thing that jumps out at me: breakeven costs. Oil companies are not drilling wells to lose money. If shale oil production is going to increase by 16% year-over-year it tells me that someone is making money on shale.

By the way, corroboration for that last statement -- making money -- note the dividend increases by a number of shale operators.

From Rystad/Rigzone:

As if they’re not already on a roll, U.S. shale operators are on track to increase oil production by 16 percent in 2019, according to analysis by energy research firm Rystad Energy.

Rystad said the growth in U.S. onshore production from first quarter 2019 through fourth quarter 2019 could equate to 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day (MMbpd), or 16 percent, for the full year.

*************************************
Small Operator Expands Texas Storage Terminal

From Rigzone. Data points --

• Bluewing Midstream LLC
• South Texas bulk liquids terminal at Port of Brownsville
• Phase II expansion: ground breaking
• the terminal currently has storage capacity for 800,000 bbls of liquids (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, other petroleum products)
• expansion will add 300,000 bbls of capacity
• should be completed by end of year (2019)

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

Monoethylene Glycol Plant Proposed

Shell: $1.2 Billion

Ascension Parish, LA

Shell could decide to proceed with the MEG project next year. If that happens:

• 23 direct jobs
• average annual salary of $100,000 plus benefits
• 112 indirect jobs
• 1,000 construction jobs

The MEG plant would be sited at Shell's Geismar facility in Ascension Parish, LA. That plant:

• Shell added a 423,000-tonne per year alpha olefins unit at Geismar in 2018
• brings total manufacturing capacity to 1.3 million tonnes per annum across four units
• also manufactures detergent alcohols, ethylene glycol, and ethylene-based industrial chemicals

For The Archives -- EIA's Forecast Regarding US Shale -- February 26, 2018

For the archives.

Clicking on the following link will result in a pdf being downloaded: Annual Energy Outlook 2018. Among many graphics, these are two that jumped out at me:

By the way, look at this graphic and see what major "play/basin/field" is missing from the graphic below. Wow, how things have changed in only two years.

From the EIA, August 22, 2016:

Peak Oil? What Peak Oil? All Those Deferred Projects? Getting Off The Ground -- Bloomberg -- January 23, 2018

I can't count the number of times I've read stories and heard from folks that all the big global energy projects that have been deferred over the years will result in a huge crude oil shortfall. Maybe. Maybe not.

But now Bloomberg is reporting that all those deferred projects are finally getting off the ground.

The global oil industry’s backlog of big drilling projects is starting to shrink as prices improve.

From production vessels tapping Brazil’s deep-water reserves to pipes connecting rigs to underwater wells in China, the number of ventures delayed since the oil crash that finally got approval to get off the ground totaled 18 last year, according to a report by consultant Rystad Energy. That compares with only five in 2016 and two in 2015.

That’s a start, but there are still 104 delayed oil and gas projects waiting for investment approval, according to Rystad.

Much, much more at the link.

To re-cap, big global projects the past few years:

• 2015: two
• 2016: five
• 2017: 18
• pending: 104 

By the way:

• keep this data point in mind
• the most recent Bloomberg stance is a lot different than it was just on December 28, 2017, less than one month ago 

About That "Decreased Conventional Discoveries" -- A Bit Of Perspective -- December 22, 2017

Updates

May 27, 2019: update on conventional -- high-impact -- exploration.

February 1, 2018: Richard Zeits talks about ten million bopd.

February 1, 2018: Chevron has best year for new oil discoveries since 2011.

December 28, 2017: Bloomberg repeats the gloom and doom story.

December 26, 2017: from Yahoo!Finance:

Original Post 

The other day I linked a story sent to me by a reader about conventional oil discoveries. At the time I said I did not "like" such stories but posted it for the archives. This was the story:

The story over at oilprice.com. 

The oil industry discovered the least amount of oil in 2017 in almost eight decades, breaking the previous record low set in 2016.

The global oil industry has discovered less than seven billion barrels of oil equivalent so far this year—a drop-off from the 8 billion boe discovered last year. Last year’s total was the lowest since the 1940s. The 2017 figure is down by more than half from the 15 billion boe discovered in 2014-2015, and down sharply from the 30 billion boe discovered in 2012.

The plunge is the result of a third consecutive year of relatively low upstream exploration budgets. So many oil companies slashed their spending on exploration when the market downturn began in 2014, and they have yet to restore that spending to anything close to pre-2014 levels.

The problem with these articles: the writer does not put this into perspective. 

Here's a little bit of perspective from April 27, 2017:

This story has been told several times in several places over the past few days. I have not posted the story nor linked the story until now. There were several reasons why I did not post/link it.

But now, with this graph, perfect for posting:

I think the graph would have been even more "effective" had they drawn the x-axis to 75 billion bbls to accurately capture the 60-billion-bar for 2009. Folks are concerned that low discovery rate in past two years will mean severe supply/demand imbalance sooner (2018) than later (?).

Maybe, maybe not. But when I see the graph above, and note the 2009 bar, as well as the 2012 and 2014 bars, my hunch is it will take a few years to work that off, as well as the three billion bbls of crude oil now being stored globally.

These are discoveries, not production.

In 2007, the North Dakota Bakken boom began.

The Bakken reached its stride in 2010 - 2012. Even through 2014 significant discoveries were being made.

I don''t know when Big Oil will increase CAPEX to explore for new conventional basins/fields, but my hunch is there is no hurry. Had the bar in the graph above not been truncated, it would have stretched off the graph, into the paragraph above.

Oil Discoveries At Lowest Point Since The 1940s -- Oilprice -- December 21, 2017

I told the reader who sent me this article:

I don't like posting these kinds of articles for the very reason you mention: not only does the author not understand the shale revolution, the author does not understand the oil industry -- at least that's what I get from this article.

But I am posting it because it will be great for the archives, something to look back on 10 years from now.

The story over at oilprice.com. 

The oil industry discovered the least amount of oil in 2017 in almost eight decades, breaking the previous record low set in 2016.

The global oil industry has discovered less than seven billion barrels of oil equivalent so far this year—a drop-off from the 8 billion boe discovered last year. Last year’s total was the lowest since the 1940s. The 2017 figure is down by more than half from the 15 billion boe discovered in 2014-2015, and down sharply from the 30 billion boe discovered in 2012.

The plunge is the result of a third consecutive year of relatively low upstream exploration budgets. So many oil companies slashed their spending on exploration when the market downturn began in 2014, and they have yet to restore that spending to anything close to pre-2014 levels.

So many story lines, but not worth the effort.

My only comment: I'm not worried. 

From an earlier post:

US Crude Oil Production Forecast

 
With all the talk about the Permian recently, let's see what the EIA forecasts. Today, via Twitter, from 
EIA:

In addition, the following graphic was posted by the EIA earlier this year, August 22, 2016:

Note the amount of dark blue (Bakken) vs the Wolfcamp (blue).

US Shale Frackers Eye World Conquest -- One Year Ago -- The Telegraph -- August 23, 2017

This is probably as good a "look-back" as I've seen, from The [London] Telegraph. Archived.

Remember: this article is from a year ago, during the early stages of the "depression."

It's a long article and covers many areas, so let's go through some of the data points with my comments thrown in.

Most remarkable prognostication from the article, from Mark Papa, "a legendary figure in the shale fraternity and now at Riverstone Holdings": 

“I can see a case where US shale is the biggest supplier of oil in the world by 2020. We could turn the whole thing on its ear, producing 13-14m b/d. But it will be really ugly getting through this valley,” he said. 

Most interesting comment from the article, also from Mark Papa:

Mr Papa said it will not be long before engineers work out how to double the efficiency of shale extraction to the 50 percent levels seen in conventional oil wells. "It'll probably come in the next ten years. That's the next big break-through," he said.

For newbies, as I understand it, Mr Papa is talking about "primary production" and does not include enhanced oil recovery using waterflooding or CO2 injection.

This raises the question: what is the current primary production estimated to be in the Bakken? At the beginning of the boom, it was widely accepted that primary production would range between 1 and 3 percent. For a 500-billion bbl original-oil-in-place reservoir, that worked out to 5 to 15 billion bbls.

Around 2014 or so, Whiting and others were suggesting that operators were achieving 7% primary production in the Bakken and reading between the lines, it appeared that some operators might have been achieving as much as 12% or at least trying to hit that target.

At 10% primary production, a 500-billion bbl original-oil-in-place reservoir works out to 50 billion bbls of recoverable oil.

Currently, the Bakken is producing about 350 million bbls annually, or 1 billion bbls every three years. Unfettered, Bentek estimated (and some continue to estimate) that the Bakken can produce 2.2 million bbls daily if the "price was right."

The second most interesting comment from the article: I vividly recall analysts saying that it was impossible for frackers to "turn on a dime," that it would take months for frackers to spud a well and bring it to production. I remember that vividly because I was not seeing that in the Bakken. From spud to production, operators could measure it in days -- generally about 30 days. And bringing in more rigs was not all that difficult. The biggest problem for the Bakken was competition from the Permian for skilled work crews but with things starting to turn a bit sour in the Permian, the Bakken may have some relief. But I digress. From the article:

"Restarting production may be easier than people think. Everything is ready to go. There are plenty of rigs. All the ingredients are there. There is a lot of money looking for the bottom of the cycle, waiting to get back in," he said. 

In the first two or three years of the Bakken boom, there was minimal infrastructure and constrained takeaway capacity. Both of those have been resolved.

Not mentioned in the article, in the Bakken alone:

• 850 DUCs
• 1,500 wells that are shut in for various reasons

At the end of this quote, IHS was thinking specifically of the Bakken, but since 2016, everything changed when the DAPL came on line (early 2017):

IHS said there are three groups of 'invisible barrels' likely to bear the brunt as the market stabilizes: small-scale 'stripper wells' of around 2m b/d, half of them in the US; those with high-fixed costs in North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico that are going into steeper decline; and those in remote locations or with long pipelines, and a $10-$12 disadvantage. "

They are in the eye of the storm," it said. 

Hess disagrees: 

The great unknown for world oil markets is how fast the frackers will come back. John Hess says it will take two years once prices recover.

"It is a big logistical undertaking. You've got to mobilize rigs and find people. Assets need permits in the US, and that takes 90 days," he said. "Balance sheets are in disrepair and there is too much debt. The high-yield market has basically dried up and that was the primary source of financing for the shale boom. Debt agencies are in a panic and running everything through $30 oil for the next few years," he said. 

I think where Hess and I disagree has to do with the definition of "recover." It may take two years for E&Ps to return to historical levels of prosperity (as measured by share price or market capitalization) but it certainly won't take two years to see an incredible rush back into the Bakken if oil prices a) began to trend toward $60; and, b) tea leaves suggest that the trend would continue.

Possibly the most incorrect prognostication:

Scott Sheffield, head of Pioneer, expects trouble in the Eagle Ford and Bakken fields, but it is a different story in the lucrative Permian Basin of West Texas, the "crown jewel" holding steady at 2m b/d even at current prices. He claims it is as big as the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, and could eventually produce 6m b/d. 

I agree that production will remain steady (or grow) in the Permian, but it may be more financially challenging than first expected. Paying $60,000/acre in an era of "lower for longer" is not going to cut it, as BHP found out.

Break-evens for US operators: no one knows. The "number" is all over the place. Everyone agrees that "very few things make sense at $30. It's better to leave the oil in the ground."

David Hager, head of Devon Energy, said shale frackers have slashed cuts costs way more than outsiders generally realize since the heady days of the boom, when service fees and wages were rocketing.

"A lot of plays work at $45-$50, and the vast majority from $55-$60. They certainly don't need $90," he said.

This is optimistic. A study by Rystad consultants in Norway puts the break-even price at $68, but nobody knows for sure and frackers disagree among themselves.

Shake-out:  again, Mark Papa -- Mr Papa said the 70 percent crash in oil prices since mid-2014 will wipe out those companies that leveraged to the hilt betting that crude prices would stay above $100 forever.

BHP Billiton is a great example. The company itself agrees that it overpaid when it spent $20 billion to enter US shale plays (the Eagle Ford and the Permian), previously posted/linked. Only because of its size and other mining businesses did BHP survive (and thrive, for that matter).

Re-Balancing: perhaps by end of 2016, into 2017, but difficult to predict. This is what caught my eye, and many readers say the same thing. A new bust-boom cycle:

Mr Papa expects the global balance of supply and demand to tighten by 1.6m b/d this year. This would mop up the glut, before gradually eating into record stocks next year.

"The market is going to grow to 100m b/d. Where is the quantity going to come from? Capital spending on mega-projects has stopped cold,” he said.

“I can see a case where US shale is the biggest supplier of oil in the world by 2020. We could turn the whole thing on its ear, producing 13-14m b/d. But it will be really ugly getting through this valley,” he said.

See my most current estimates regarding "re-balancing" at this post.

By the way, I disagree with Mark Papa on this point: 

"The market is going to grow to 100m b/d. Where is the quantity going to come from? Capital spending on mega-projects has stopped cold,” he said.

The tea leaves suggest there is more than enough oil out there to preclude that concern. But the tea leaves also suggest I am in the distinct minority. Most agree that shale cannot make up for all the off-shore CAPEX that has been deferred or canceled. The reason I disagree: Mideast potential, especially Iraq. Much could be written but perhaps for a different day.

Not just shale. 

"Most companies will survive to take advantage of the recovery. We will ramp up, stay alive, meet the challenge, and look forward to a brighter day. It is not just shale that doesn't work at today's prices, nothing much at all works," said Mr Hager.

I did not post it but there was a recent article suggesting that "stripper wells" are returning. Operators that had shut down stripper well operations are are now returning. I didn't post the story because it seemed to be a press release from oil companies in California where fracking is not panning out for political and geologic reasons. But if I'm wrong, and strippers are coming back, that speaks volumes for the oil sector.

Not mentioned in the article: fracking strategies. Sand is getting more expensive; ceramics remain very expensive. The trend toward ever-increasing amounts of proppant to complete a well seems to be coming to an end. Much more sand is being used, but more sand is being mined, and, either God or nature again seems to smile on the US frackers: huge amounts of fracking sand have been discovered in west Texas, in/near the Permian. Rail won't be required; truckers will do the job. Ceramics appears to be "out" -- too expensive and experience suggests sand does just as well. All those concerns about sand "not holding up" may have been more marketing than real. The big change in sand has to do with size of sand. Operators are going to "smaller" sand.

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


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

Addendum

Playing Around With Numbers

In the examples below, one can pick whatever numbers in bold one wants.


The North Dakota Bakken (middle Bakken plus Three Forks first bench)

• Williston to Minot: 120 miles
• Williston to Belfield: 100 miles
• 100 miles x 100 miles = 10,000 square miles -- the North Dakota Bakken

640 acres/square mile = 6.4 million acres

5,000 1280-acre drilling units

500 billion bbl original-oil-in-place reservoir

500 billion bbls OOIP / 6,400,000 acres = 78,125 bbls OOIP/acre

78,125 bbls OOIP/acre x  1280 acres/drilling unit = 100 million bbls OOIP / 1280-acre drilling unit
500 billion bbls OOIP / 5,000 1280-acre drilling units = 100 million bbls OOIP / 1280-acre drilling unit

12 wells / 1280-acre drilling unit

100 million bbls OOIP x 7% production rate = 7 million bbls recoverable oil / 1280-acre drilling unit
7 million bbs / 12 wells = 583,333 bbls / well

Summary: at 7% production rate across the middle Bakken/Three Forks first bench yields:  583,333 bbls/well

Whether one agrees with the assumptions or not (the numbers in bold) it is amazing that the law of large numbers seems to work. I think everyone agrees that EURs of 600,000 bbls is not unrealistic (yes, I know there are a lot of poor Bakken wells out there, but one can also argue that a lot of those poorer Bakken wells were drilled under less than optimal conditions, beginning with poor understanding of the geology and extending through inexperienced roughnecks.

If, in fact, operators are approaching 14% productivity rate in the Bakken, then one can expect million-bbl EURs.

Idle chatter but it helps me validate OOIP estimates; company talk about production rates; and, EURs of wells that are being drilled over time.

Market And Energy News, T+24, February 13, 2017

The Market Close

 Apple shares close at all-time high. 

S & P 500 tops $20 trillion as Wall Street trades Trump.

*************************
Early Afternoon Trading

Dow Jones Industrials: up almost 200 points. This is absolutely insane. In a good way. 

NYSE:

• new highs, 228: the banks; CNP, Deere, Honda, Norfolk Southern, Tallgrass Energy Partners,
• new lows, 4 -- yup, just four

************************
Mid-Morning Trading

The Dow Jones Industrials average is up 133 points, now over 20,400. This is clearly more than anticipation of "tax breaks." This is all about the Trump administration believe in making America great again, and it's not just based on "tax cuts":

• cheap, accessible energy
• foreign leaders beating a path to Washington to look for investment opportunities in the US
• regulatory relief (especially in bank stocks)
• tax breaks (only a small part of all of this)
• ObamaCare -- whatever happens -- won't cost corporations more
• immigration policy will have counterintuitive effect on minimal wages: all things being equal, by the end of 2017, certainly by 2018, we should see significant increase in average wages being paid in US
• the "make-up" of the Federal Reserve Board will change in the next few months 
• BREXIT; FREXIT?; Greece crumbling; Venezuela crumbling; bonds in Germany returning negative rates

********************************
 It Only Took Four Years

Alberta Clipper, story here, with byline from Bismarck, ND, data points:

• four-year review
• Enbridge Energy Partners
• process began in 2012
• goal: to transport 800,000 bopd on an existing 3-mile section of pipeline on the company's Alberta Clipper pipeline 
• carries tar sand oil from Canada across northeastern ND and northern Minnesota to Superior, WI

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

US Crude Oil Production Forecast

 
With all the talk about the Permian recently, let's see what the EIA forecasts. Today, via Twitter, from 
EIA:

In addition, the following graphic was posted by the EIA earlier this year, August 22, 2016:

Note the amount of dark blue (Bakken) vs the Wolfcamp (blue).

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

The Opening: Since the election: $2 trillion added. Dow easily hits 20,330. Up 2,000 points since the election.S&P hits a record high, 2,322. NASDAQ hits record high, 5,752.  Another triple-digit jump on the Dow today? [Yup, a few minutes later, up 103 points, though it has dropped back a bit.]

NYSE:

• new highs, 184 in early trading: banks across the board; CNP, Deere, 
• new lows, 0.

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

Futures

Futures: suggest opening at all-time high for all three indices. Again.

OPEC: must be in a world of hurt. Asking non-OPEC producers to decrease production. Story here.

Wind: North Dakota becoming a powerhouse. Story here.

Texas is the leader in producing wind energy -- last year, it became the first state to surpass a capacity of 20,000 megawatts. Of the 41 states that have wind farms, North Dakota ranked fourth in terms of installation of wind energy.

The More Things (Seem To) Change, The More They Stay The Same -- January 23, 2017

I assume I've seen this presentation before, but I honestly don't recall. A reader sent me the link this morning, and I went through it fairly quickly.

This is the annual energy forecast put out by BP every year; this one was published 2016, and takes the forecast through 2016.

It is important when growing through the comments and the graphics to pay special attention to the "gotchas":

• rate of growth (positive or negative)
• share of each component of energy
• absolute amount of energy provided by each component

The presentation seems to lean heavily on "rate of growth" and "changes in patterns of growth." This is very, very different from absolute amounts being used.

When it comes to energy, this appears to be the bottom line: between now (2014) and then (2035) the size of the (energy) pie will have grown substantially. The relative sizes of the various slices (oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable, hydro) will change, but even there, the relative sizes won't change much. Case in point: between 2014 and 2035, the slice of coal will go from 30% of the full (energy) pie to 25%. Someone one a diet would hardly notice; but for the dieter, it's actually "worse" in 2035 than 2014 because the size of the pie (and the size of the slice) will be bigger. 

Some graphics that jumped out at me:

War on coal: after all this talk about the "war on coal" the relative size of the "coal slice" will go from 30% to 25% -- hardly noticeable in the real world, and that is over the course of 20 years. We'll see how big the entire (energy) pie is in 2035 compared to 2014 later. First the graph:

Also, note that almost nothing else changes:

• oil goes from 32% to 29% over 20 years; hardly perceptible in the size of the slice
• natural gas increases slightly but the change in the size of the slice will hardly be seen
• nuclear: anyone that can predict 4% vs 5% over 20 years has a pretty good crystal ball
• hydro: to maintain that size slice, it will have to grow
• renewables: triples, but remains inconsequential; the bigger problem is the strain renewables will place on the grid; renewable energy will need to be backed up by natural gas or coal

Growth in energy relative to growth in population: again, referring to the graph above. If I read the graph correctly,

• total energy ("primary energy"): will grow 34% between 2014 and 2035
• however, the global population will "only" increase by 21" 

And, of course, that makes sense. The population growth will be greater in those countries / continents (China, Africa) where energy use per capita will increase, greatly off-setting energy savings in more developed countries / regions (US, EU).

The Size of the (Energy) Pie

This is a good example of watching out for the "gotcha's." The right side of the graphic suggests that China's energy consumption will decrease. No. This is rate of growth, consistent with a maturing country. I would pretty much ignore the right side of the graphic.

The left side of the graphic shows how significantly the size of the (energy) pie grows. In 2014, we're sitting at about 13 billion toe; by 2035, it increases to about 17 billion toe. Back-of-the-envelope:

• coal, at 30% of 13 billioin toe = 3.9
• coal, at 25% of 17 billion toe = 4.25

So, although the coal slice of the (energy) pie gets smaller as a percent, it increases in size in absolute terms.

Something else caught my eye: India is "subsumed" (I assume) in the "yellow" (racist, unintentional) "Other Asia." The BP folks are a whole lot smarter than I am, but to not separate out India on this graph seems a bit interesting.

Global vehicle fleet:

The graph speaks for itself:

The Fallacy of Crystal Balls: this is the graph that interested me most. No comment (for now).

***************** 

A Note to the Granddaughters

We have three granddaughters, ages 13, 10, and 2 1/2.

We have been primarily responsible for getting them to their school and non-school events, including:

• competitive swimming
• gymnastics
• water polo
• field soccer (outdoor)
• futsal (indoor soccer — “arena football”)
• band practices
• track events

The first couple of years were in Charleston, South Carolina. The next four years were in the Boston, MA, area. The last three years (now going on our fourth year) were in the DFW (Dallas-Ft Worth-Grapevine) area.

The number of miles we have put on four or five different automobiles across the southeast, the northeast, and now the south, is not something I would want to know, but having said that, I wish I had kept a 3 x 5 index card on each event. It would have been a stack of memorabilia surpassed in size and importance only by the world-record ball of twine located somewhere in the midwest.

For anyone else, I would have complained about all the driving and all the things I have missed (mostly NFL football games and NASCAR) but for the granddaughters, I have never complained.

One of the benefits of all this driving: I have really, really learned the “geography” of the locations we have lived. I don’t have a smart phone and I don’t have GPS in the car, so I study the map very, very well before I leave. About three years ago when we first arrived in this area, I was taking Olivia to soccer training. I was running late, it was dark, I was getting lost. As we neared the field, I asked Olivia if this was the right location, if it looked familiar to her. She said she did not know. She said it was my job to get her where she needed to be; it was her job to play soccer. She was seven years old at the time; not much has changed.

I say all that to say this: it is absolutely amazing all the sports venues available in the DFW area.

After sixty years of being involved in sports in one way or the other, around the world (Turkey, Germany, England, north Africa) I can say I have seen a lot of sports venues, and without question none compare to what I have seen in the DFW area.

The number of facilities seem to never end, and in general they are huge. This morning it’s a futsal game in north Carrollton on I-35E. This afternoon it will be Olympic Program Development training in south Carrollton on I-35E.

Meanwhile, the oldest granddaughter will be at water polo practice in a huge natatorium in Southlake.

And the youngest, little Sophia will be at soccer practice in yet another large sports complex, also in Southlake.  

*************************
Final Score
2 -1, we were behind, with 37 seconds to play.

Olivia on the assist, teammate scores, and the game ends tied, 2 - 2. An incredible game. In this league, a tie is almost as good as a win, especially when coming from behind with only 30-some seconds left on the clock.

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

Futsal

Now a little grandfatherly bragging.

As noted above, futsal is to field soccer as arena football is to American (outdoor) football. Unlike field soccer where it is 8 v 8 (plus the goalies), futsal is 4 v 4 (plus the goalies). In a sense it seems a bit faster-paced (smaller field of play; no throw-ins (“kick-ins” instead). [In some futsal arenas where the walls define the playing area, there is no out-of-bounds, and therefore no throw-ins/kick-ins, and much faster paced.

Olivia appears to have about eight team members, five on the court, three on the bench. Olivia has played most of the game, just now coming out. From my vantage point, she seems to be as good as any, perhaps better than most. She is “playing up” (she is the only one her team one year younger than the “official” age for this group). She was specifically “recruited” to play with this older team.

With eight minutes left in regulation time (50-minute games), the game is tied 1 - 1 (see final score above). This is FC Dallas, (football club Dallas) and some of these girls will move up through the farm system to play for a professional team (such as FC Dallas), some of whom will play college soccer and some of whom we will see on US Olympic team in eight years.

Update On The Bakken -- Lynn Helms -- September 23, 2016

There may be factual and typographical errors on this page. Some of this is my own opinion. If this information is important to you, to go the source. 

Do not rely on the MillionDollarWay blog for accurate information about the Bakken. The website's author is inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken. 

Data points from The Williston Herald and a radio interview, September 23, 2016:

• North Dakota production will likely dip below 1 million bopd but not below 900,000 bopd
• wells continue to get better and better
• Bakken is 94% oil (important fact to remember when comparing the Bakken with the Permian and the Eagle Ford)
• if IPs used to average 1,100, now they are averaging 1,500
• at the beginning of the boom, Bakken wells were estimated to continue producing for 30 years; now it is estimated that Bakken wells will produce for 35 years
• Bakken wells EURs have increased 25%
• 8,000 to 8,500 wells drilled using old technology might be good refrack candidates
• high point for the Bakken: 2023
• based on $50 to $60 oil
• 65,000 wells
• peak rig count of 150
• in a slow year (current year, for example), "we" won't reach 2,500 wells drilled/year
• in one scenario, those additional wells won't be drilled until 2035, but with a spike in oil prices, they could be drilled in 2017
• forecasting important: it affects issues such as crew camps
• oil in the $50 to $60 range: 900 DUCs highly economical
• frack crews now average in the range of five to eleven (5 - 11)
• at peak prices, there were 50 frack crews operating in the Bakken
• at $60 oil, the Bakken is superior to the Permian and the Eagle Ford
• today's rigs average 25 wells/year vs 8 or 9 wells in 2009
• multi-well pads, new bit technology, new motor technology, new mud technology
• recently an operator drilled a 3-mile lateral with one bit and one motor (previously reported at the blog); typically, an operator would require three bits/well
• Lynn Helms does not sound optimistic about the DAPL

A reminder: tight oil plays in the US -- EIA -- annual energy outlook (2016) -- out to 2040: graphic here.

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

Air Park East Of Williston

Red Mike golf course east of Williston; air park moving along. Opportunity for individuals to build homes next to runway for private airplanes. Approval to close a section line road to the lake was approved. There are two access points to the lake in the immediate area: one access point one mile to the east, and one access point one mile west.

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

A Note For The Granddaughters 

For a great book on "Helen of Troy" this may be one of the best: Helen of Troy: The Story Behind the Most Beautiful Woman in the World, Bettany Hughes, c. 2005.

Six pages of maps.

Timeline: 7 pages

Dramatis Personae, Greek gods, family trees: 3 pages

Text: 343 pages

Notes: 67 pages

Bibliography: 5 pages

Other works: 25 pages

Index: 14 pages

Tight Oil Plays In The US -- EIA -- Annual Energy Outlook 2016 -- August 22, 2016

First the screenshot:

See poll at the sidebar at the right, asking readers what they think is most remarkable about this graphic? Update, August 24, 2016, results of the poll:

• that the Bakken is the dominant US tight oil play: 58%
• that the Eagle Ford dwindles relatively quickly, compared to the Bakken: 16%
• after peaking in 2030, Bakken production barely declines through 2040: 13%
• that Oklahoma's STACK/SCOOP plays are relegated to "other plays": 6%
• that the Bakken is forecast to "last" this long: 6%

From this link.

I don't know about you, but for me, this graph is incredibly compelling. It takes me back to the original estimates by Harold Hamm and Bentek.

Note which "play" is absent from the graphic. It is part of "other," no doubt.

Right now, in late 2016, the Permian is getting a lot of interest, but at the end of the day, it's hard to beat a play with oil comprising 93% (or more of the output).

By the way, it appears that the "area under the curve" for the Bakken is about 14 billion bbls of oil (from 2015 to 2040). Conservative estimates: the Bakken will produce at least 50 billion bbls of oil, assuming we don't go back to coal to power all the EVs in the US by 2050. 

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

The Music Page

Lou Reed

Warning: sexually explicit lyrics. 


Initial critical review was mixed. Rolling Stone seemed to have "panned it" when it was released. It stood the test of time. From wiki:

In 1997, Transformer was named the 44th greatest album of all time in a 'Music of the Millennium poll conducted in the United Kingdom by HMV Group, Channel 4, The Guardian and Classic FM.

Transformer is also ranked number 55 on NME 's list of "Greatest Albums of All Time." In 2003, the album was ranked number 194 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.[12] It is also on Q Magazine's list of "100 Greatest Albums Ever".