Saturday, December 31, 2016

Idle Meanderings -- December 30, 2016

Source: EIA.

Looking at the far right side of the graph, three lines, A, B, and C. Essentially those are the three possibilities for 2017:
A) price of oil creeps up, trending toward $75/bbl by the end of the year
B) price of oil remains at present level, $53 +/- $5 per bbl
C) price of oil trends down, toward $40 but not much lower
Likelihood, my opinion:
A) 20% chance
B) 75% likelihood
C) 5% chance
Implications:
A) if the price of oil trends toward but without going over $75: huge win for almost anyone involved in production of oil, including passive investors; consumers see more expensive gasoline but probably not enough to send economy into recession, but nonetheless, painful
B) win-win for everyone, US producers and global consumers; at $50 - $55 barely adequate for Russia, Saudi Arabia, but better than C)
C) not good for anyone, except consumers, but particularly ominous for Saudi Arabia, Russia
Saudi Arabia and Russia would almost be forced to do "anything" to prevent C). Because oil at less than $40 becomes an existential issue for Saudi Arabia, my hunch is that Saudi Arabia would probably do almost anything to keep the price of oil from trending down again.

**************************************
Opportunity

The run-up in price the price of oil between 2007 and 2009 (just before the "crash") was critical for the Bakken to boom. Had this run-up not occurred, one can argue the Bakken boom would not have occurred; it most likely would have been significantly delay. 
The second opportunity came during the sustained increase in the price of oil after the "crash", from 2009 to 2014. Again, had this price increase not occurred, it's unlikely the Bakken boom would have been sustained.

If folks remember: it was incredibly expensive to explore, drill, frack, obtain leases, put in the roads, put in the pads, obtain the sand, etc., etc., in the early days of the boom. At $50-oil this boom could not have occurred. 

Now, in 2016, going into 2017:
  • upfront leases -- incredibly expensive -- are a thing of the past
  • oilfield services are so much less expensive
  • sand is easily obtained, and much less expensive
  • operators using more sand (cheap) and less ceramic (expensive)
  • roads, pads, pipelines, rail -- the infrastructure is all in place (yes, more will be added, but hardly "needed"; and whatever infrastructure is added/"needed" pales in comparison to the story in 2007
  • wells were much less productive in the early days
  • wells costs have come way, way down (less then half?) and production has increased immensely in the first 90 days, and the first full year
  • EURs have gone from 350,000 boe to 1.5 million boe
  • pad drilling, DUCs, permits-in-hand, walking rigs, more effective rigs, better completion techniques now in place
  • work force incredibly experienced; based on accuracy of drilling; speed of drilling
  • geologists understand the Bakken; just before the 2014 crash, the middle Bakken was pretty much all mapped out but the Three Forks first bench hardly explored (by comparison); second, third, and fourth benches hardly explored at all -- handful of deeper wells in the Bakken pool
$100-oil was needed to light the Bakken boom.

**************************
 
Later, thoughts about the slump in the price of oil in 2008 - 2009; and in 2014 - 2016.

Friday, December 30, 2016

A Reader Provides A Comment On "Pumped Storage" For Wind Energy In Montana -- December 30, 2016

A reader made some great points and introduced some concepts of which I was unaware, so with minimal editing, I posted the entire comment at an earlier post. I did not ask permission from the reader to post it, so if he/she wants it removed, I will remove if so requested. Of course the note is posted anonymously.

I normally don't post such long commentaries or notes sent to me, but this one was too good not to share.

This has to do with "pumped storage" associated with wind energy in Montana, posted a few days ago.

************************
Fighting Seminoles

I'm sitting here watching the Orange Bowl, the FSU Seminoles, the "war chant," and, the "tomahawk chop."

And thinking about the Fighting Sioux.

I'm sure someone can explain it; I can't.

[Update: and someone did -- see first comment.]

Absolutely Nothing Of Interest In Today's Daily Activity Report -- And I Came Home To Blog This? December 30, 2016

Active rigs:


12/30/201612/30/201512/30/201412/30/201312/30/2012
Active Rigs3961170187187

No new permits.

No DUCs completed.

No, nothing.

Except, one permit renewal:
  • Murex: a Sophia Drake permit in Mountrail County.

Worker Shortage Looming In The Bakken? -- December 30, 2016

Updates

Later, 8:30 p.m. Central Time: see first comment. I corrected the original post to reflect the first comment regarding water used for fracking. Huge "thank you" to the reader for the comment.Wow, I hate it when I make a stupid error like that. I should have known.


Original Post
 
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2016: worker shortage looming in the Bakken.

Today, from The Jamestown Sun (so it might be somewhat of a repeat of an earlier story but its byline is Williston, ND, and the writer is April Baumgarten, so there might be a few new data points of interest):
  • Job Service North Dakota announced six (6) oil companies are looking for workers to man fracking crews
  • 45  - 65 workers per crew; low end: 300 hires
  • recent job posting are mostly for service or workover rigs
  • almost 500 jobs posted at the Job Service site mentioned oil
  • November's increase from October:
    • Stark County: an increase of 140
    • Williams County: an increase of 50
  • December numbers are expected to come out Wednesday (January 4, 2017?)
For newbies, it doesn't take long to frack a well. In my simple way of thinking there are three elements: a) getting sand and water (see first comment) pre-positioned; b) getting the pumping units pre-positioned; and, c) the actual fracking.

Getting sand and water pre-positioned will take the most time but it can be done in anticipation of actual fracking. Fracking spreads are not sitting around waiting to frack. They will frack wells while sand is being delivered to other pads. What pre-positioning requires is lots and lots of trucks. It takes 2,000 (or 4,000, I forget) truck trips for each frack. Something like that. A lot. (With high intensity fracks, more truck-trips might be needed for all that sand.)

In the old days (before pad drilling) it was a time-intensive to move pumping units from well to well. Now fracking spreads have two, three, four, or more wells on one pad that can all be fracked before moving to the next pad. Just one of the huge advantages of pad drilling.

The actual fracking takes very little time, measured in days. I assume an average of about three to six days, total.

I don't know but if pre-positioning works, they might even be able to do significant fracking during spring thaw when historically road weight restrictions are put in place, but now I'm way beyond my comfort zone.

Back-of-the-envelope: this does not include the fracking spreads already working in the Bakken:
  • six new fracking spreads, two wells/week/spread
    • twelve wells/week for these six fracking spreads
    • March to November, nine months = 36 weeks
    • 36 weeks x 12 wells = 400 wells
  • currently about 45 wells are coming off the confidential list each month
    • March to November, 45 x 9 = 400 new wells
  • current number of DUCs, about 800

More On The Petro Harvester Wells Along The Canadian Border -- December 30, 2016

I have two major "blind spots" when it comes to monthly production data from Williston Basin wells: a) water production; and, b) natural gas production.

I was reminded of the latter (natural gas production) when a reader noted the natural gas production of a Petro Harvester well along the Canadian border.

By the way, another reader provided some interesting data points about these Petro Harvester wells.

Monthly Production Data (note: this is a horizontal MADISON well):


PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
MADISON11-201630481043821883334107341070
MADISON10-201631601560382102542761401932568
MADISON9-201630491243861650524687235191168
MADISON8-20163153765356147802075320288465
MADISON7-201631728971611570226622246491973
MADISON6-201630873792371579427182252121970
MADISON5-201628757069081273913420116201800
MADISON4-2016305089501913793740230674335
MADISON3-2016315728544017001762307623
MADISON2-2016296220656613104923509235
MADISON1-2016317716747313345847608476
MADISON12-2015316910664015886829208292
MADISON11-2015677044862500250

****************************************
Aurochs

Yesterday I posted a short note regarding aurochs. I completely missed an important point. The local librarian pointed it out to me today when discussing the subject: think about the pronunciation or etymology of the two words, "aurochs" and "iraq."

********************************
The Literature Page

Perhaps a good book for those interested in biology, evolution, geologic history of earth, greenhouse epochs of the past, etc.:
A New History Of Life: 
The Radical New Discoveries About The Origins and Evolution of Life On Earth
Peter Ward and Joe Kirschvink
c. 2015

I would highly recommend this book for any high school senior who plans to major in one of the life sciences in college.

Having read about a fifth of it, it appears to me that our time would be better spent planning for an earth with increased atmospheric CO2 than trying to prevent it. There have been several times in earth's history -- well before humans were around -- when high CO2, low O2 was the reality. At the very worst, and much worse than what is predicted by even the most pessimistic of warmists today, there was simply a "change" in location of where animals thrived. The alternative suggestion, an escape to Mars sounds fanciful and unrealistic.

Some significant changes / concepts, some of which may be new since I last studied this subject:

The "dinosaur-killing" K-T Cretaceous period-Tertiary Period mass extinction is now termed the K-Pg, or Cretaceous-Paleogene Period but most, even these authors, still use the better known K-T designation.

Low O2 (which correlates with high CO2) is prime determinant of animal diversity (diversity, not necessarily extinction).

Why reptiles have a three-chambered heart and why they generally do not chase their prey, but rather sit passively waiting to spring on unsuspecting prey (think alligators and crocodiles).

The tree of life which has changed in the last decade or so: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya, with shading to designate the organisms that thrive in high heat.

Carl Woese's theory and the discussion of methanogens.

RNA as a catalyst.

And that's just a start.  Something tells me it's going to take a long time to get through this book.