Williston Basin Deals in 2017

This is just some housekeeping. There is nothing new being posted here. Everything being posted here has been posted before.

I track "Williston Basin Deals" at the sidebar at the right.

I am moving all the deals in 2017 to a single page.

Disclaimer: obviously this list is not all inclusive. The purpose is to give me an idea of what is going on in the Bakken, nothing more, nothing less. Not only is the list not all-inclusive, the information is very, very superficial. Do not make any financial, investment, or travel decisions based on what you read here or think you may have read here. If this information is important to you, go to the source. A more complete disclaimer is found at the tab at the top of the blog.  

 

2017

 

Whiting sells Fort Berthold assets to RimRock, January 26, 2018 

Oasis to exit the Bakken; enter the Permian, December 12, 2017

 

Linn Energy to exit Williston Basin, October 23, 2017

 

Oasis launches midstream MLP, September 16, 2017

 

Whiting to sell some assets in Fort Berthold, August 15, 2017

 

Halcon sells all of its operated Bakken assets; buyer: Bruin E&P Partners, July 11, 2017

 

Keane buys Rock Pile, May 19, 2017

 

Oasis to spin off MLP, May 19, 2017

 

SM to exit the Bakken, same link as below, January 25, 2017

 

SM Energy transferred 92 wells to White Rock; earlier SM Energy had sold some acreage to Oasis, January 25, 2017

WTI Down On Stronger Dollar; Active Rigs At 57 -- January 29, 2018

Active rigs:

$65.52↓	1/29/2018	01/29/2017	01/29/2016	01/29/2015	01/29/2014
Active Rigs	57	38	45	146	190

Five new permits:

• Operators: Slawson (3); Bruin (2)
• Fields: Big Bend (Mountrail County), McGregory Buttes (Dunn County)
• Comments: Slawson has permits for another 3-well Armada Federal pad in SWSW 14-151-92; we've come across Armada Federal wells before; Bruin has permits for a 2-well Fort Berthold pad

Three permits canceled:

• MRO (2): a Bollete permit and a Nisbit permit, both in Dunn County
• Petro-Hunt: a Harry Dunne permit in Stark County

Two permits renewed: both Murex permits, a Patrician Ann permit and a Michael Douglas permit in Williams County; it's been a long time but I think I highlighted these two wells a long, long time ago;

Bummer: St Croix reports a dry hole, #33087, a Northern Border well in Bottineau County; can't recall if I've posted this earlier, but it sounds familiar

Two producing wells (DUCs) reported as completed:

• 30557, SI/NC, Bruin E&P, Fort Berthold 148-95-13B-24-11H, Eagle Nest, no production data,
• 33294, 1,600, Whiting, Scanlan 11-5-2TFH, Truax, t1/18; cum -- 

New permits:

• 34525, Slawson, Armada Federal, Big Bend
• 34526, Slawson, Armada Federal, Big Bend
• 34628, Slawson, Armada Federal, Big Bend
• 34528, Bruin, Fort Berthold, McGregory Buttes,
• 34529, Bruin, Fort Berthold, McGregory Buttes,

MAGA: Exxon To Spend $50 Billion In US Over Next Five Years -- Cites Tax Bill -- January 29, 2018

Link here. Headline says it all.

Either I'm Misreading The Article, Or The Headline Has Nothing To Do With The Story -- January 29, 2018

Updates

January 30, 2018: burr under my saddle. This headline-article has really bothered me. It's not like Platt's to post a "misleading" headline. I finally figured it out. Platt's was suggesting this: Saudi Arabia needs a higher price for crude oil if its Aramco IPO is going to succeed, and the IPO/oil industry is an existential issue for Saudi Arabia.

This is the nightmare: if the price of crude oil continues to rise, it benefits US shale and puts Saudi Arabia's crude oil share of the market at risk. That was the "nightmare" that Platt's was referencing. The headline confused me but it now makes sense: rising crude oil prices will create another shale oil nightmare for Saudi Arabia.

Original Post

 

This is Platt's headline: Saudi’s Aramco IPO dream could create shale oil nightmare.

Nowhere in the story is the word "nightmare" used.

The story begins:

Saudi Arabia’s dream of securing a $100bn windfall from the IPO of Aramco may be clouding its judgement.

The kingdom needs higher oil prices to entice international investors to buy a stake in the state-owned company, which supplies almost all its crude.

Using its OPEC clout to restrict global supplies and pump up the cost of its barrels makes the mega offering look more appealing but the move has also revived the kingdom’s biggest enemy in the form of US shale oil.

Oil prices have climbed 33pc to trade around $70 per barrel since the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), with the help of Russia, agreed in late 2016 to shave 1.8m barrels per day (bpd) of crude from world supplies.
That deal — brokered primarily by Riyadh — has now been extended for another year. 

Why is that a nightmare for shale oil? The article continues:

Of course, there is more at play than just Aramco. The International Monetary Fund argues that Saudi Arabia needs oil prices at their current levels to function efficiently without having to burn any more of its foreign reserves, which have dropped by about a third from their peak in August 2014 at $737 bn to compensate for the loss of revenues.
The slump also forced Riyadh to slash state benefits and subsidies, many of which have been reinstalled since oil prices recovered.

Selling a stake in Aramco is the centrepiece of his grand vision to modernise the oil-rich kingdom. Politically, its success depends on achieving the prince’s own valuation of around $2 trillion.

However, few bankers or industry experts believe such a lofty figure is attainable, even in the current buoyant environment. 

Again, I still don't see the nightmare.

I am obviously missing something.

Most interesting line in that article: However, few bankers or industry experts believe such a lofty figure ($2 trillion) is attainable, even in the current buoyant environment.

That supports my view that I have huge doubts the IPO will even be launched outside the mideast.

Reminder: Bakken Prices Here

Link here.

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

Texas Bullet Train

This is pretty cool. I think it's pretty well agreed that a bullet train from "Los Angeles" (wherever that is) to San Francisco makes absolutely no sense and will be incredibly costly for the legal, tax-paying residents of the Golden State.

On the other hand, a bullet train from Dallas (mostly likely DFW) to Houston (most likely George Bush Intercontinental Airport) makes eminent sense.

On top of everything else, the California bullet train's obstacles include:

• dozens of cities that will stand in the way of the bullet train
• huge costs associated with drilling through the mountains just north/northwest of Los Angeles
• earthquake- prone geology
• huge budgetary problems

On the other hand, for Texas:

• very few cities stand between DFW and Bush to slow the train down
• absolutely flat, easily-developed geology; no mountains; no large rivers
• no earthquakes
• no budgetary problems (yet)

So, where does Texas stand?

The "Feds" have picked the preferred route for the Dallas-to-Houston train. That was back in December, 2017. On the radio this morning, it was announced that the public-comment meetings are starting to be scheduled; I believe there are something like four public-comment meetings are required. (The linked site says there will be ten public hearings.)

Compared to the California bullet train, the DFW - GBIA should be a slam dunk.

The California bullet train is decades from reality and right now is estimated to cost upwards of $70 billion.

The Texas bullet train could be operational by 2023 and is estimated to cost less than $12 billion. the trip from LA to SF is estimated to take a little less than three (3) hours (my hunch is that this is grossly exaggerated; safety issues will require that the train slow down in many towns and cities along the route).

On the other hand, the time from DFW to GBIA is estimated to take 90 minutes.

On top of all this, compared to driving to LAX it is incredibly easy to drive to DFW and getting easier all the time. Texas is staying ahead of traffic congestion on the north side of DFW. The commute to LAX will easily add another hour to one's commute to SF, whereas the commute to DFW would be measured in minutes from the north side of DFW.

In a litigious state like California, it's hard to believe the California bullet train won't be renamed the California Keystone XL. With Trump's emphasis on infrastructure, the timing of the Texas bullet train seems more fortuitous.

I won't be alive to see the California bullet train (nor will Governor Moonbeam) but it is very likely that I will be taking the Texas bullet train before I am too old to do my own investing.